Uma Jute Twine Mills vs State of Andhra Pradesh

This revision u/s 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, is filed by the dealer-assessee. It purchases the jute for purposes of consumption in its mill. Jute is taxable at the point of last purchase in the State at the rate of 4 per cent of the turnover. The turnover of the petitioner-mill included last purchase of jute which was intended for consumption in the mill. It relates to the assessment year 1980-81. Against the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, u/s 20(2) of the said Act. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision on the ground that the assessment record disclosed that the assessee had declared the entire purchase turnover of jute as last purchase in its hands and also paid the tax thereon. Dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under revision, the petitioner filed an appeal in T.A. No. 29 of 1984 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. On July 2, 1985, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, the revision.

Sri Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the closing stock cannot be taken as the basis for assessing the sales tax. Therefore, the assessment is bad as the goods were in fact sold out in the next assessment year resulting in someone else being the last purchaser. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner purchased the goods for purposes of consumption in the mill. Due to some supervening events, the petitioner sold the stock of jute in subsequent years. That could not determine the question whether the petitioner was the last purchaser of not in the relevant year because the petitioner himself has declared before the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority that it was the last purchaser of the goods.

In the circumstances, we find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference in this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.