State of Andhra Pradesh vs Indian Medicine Sales House

Bhaskar Rao, J.—This tax revision case is filed against an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the Revenue''s contention that the assessments made on husband and wife separately should be clubbed together, they being members of a Hindu undivided family though they are registered as dealers separately.

The facts of the case are : The Indian Medicine Factory, Vijayawada, is a proprietary concern owned by one Smt. Indumathi. Her husband Narayana owns Indian Medicine Sales House at Vijayawada. The former is a manufacturing concern while the latter is a trading one. Both were registered separately as dealers and the assessments made separately. For the assessment year 1980-81, the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada, assessed the Indian Medicine Factory on a net turnover of Rs. 13,09,520 to tax. The same assessing authority assessed the Indian Medicine Sales House on a gross turnover of Rs. 11,93,203.19 and granted exemption for Rs. 11,62,499. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada, issued a show cause notice to both the wife and husband on 23rd June, 1983, as to why both the assessments should not be amalgamated into one and assessed to tax since both of them belong to a single unit of H.U.F. Objections raised by them were negatived and the entire turnover was made liable to tax. Against that order, appeals were preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the same holding that there is no bar for a wife and husband to register separately as dealers - one as a manufacturer and the other as a trader - under the Sales Tax Act and, therefore, held that the merger of the turnovers of the wife and husband was illegal and accordingly set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. Hence this revision by the State.

We have gone through the order under revision and also heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. No doubt husband and wife are members of a Hindu undivided family under the Hindu law. But the Sales Tax Act permits each of them registering separately as dealers. There is also no provision, like the one u/s 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to club the turnovers of wife and husband for purposes of assessment. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150.

Petition dismissed.