AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subhash Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under:
"it is prayed that the honourable court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the first respondent seeking to enforce the demand under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year 1997-98 as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently interdict the first respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of demand to the extent of Rs. 10,18,000 for the year 1997-98 (CST) and pass such other order or orders as the honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the APGST Act") and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the CST Act"), deals in cashew nuts. For the assessment year 1997-98, the petitioner was assessed under the CST Act by respondent No. 3 on the export sales of cashew nuts of Rs. 1,01,80,000 resulting in a demand of Rs. 10,18,000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Kakinada at Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, the assessment order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Vizianagaram Division, by order, dated August 29, 2001, passed in G. I. No. 1295/97-98 (APGST). As per the revised order, entire turnover was brought under the APGST Act and tax was assessed accordingly. It is stated that against the order of the revised assessment order, dated August 29, 2001, matter was carried in appeal and same was dismissed. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Kakinada, was dismissed as infructuous in view of the revised assessment order, dated August 29, 2001.
In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that when the entire turnover is brought under the purview of the APGST Act and tax is determined, again the same turnover cannot be subject-matter under the CST Act.
In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that in view of the dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner, garnishee notice, under section 17 of the APGST Act is issued for recovery of tax of Rs. 10,18,000 on the turnover of Rs. 1,01,80,000.
From a perusal of the orders, it is clear that though originally the petitioner was assessed under the CST Act, the same was brought under the APGST Act vide order, dated August 29, 2001, and accordingly, tax is determined, which is confirmed by the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, the same turnover cannot be the subject-matter under the CST Act.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to take any steps for enforcement of the demand under the CST Act and the garnishee notice is hereby quashed, in view of the revised order passed by the revisional authority bringing the entire turnover under the APGST Act. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.