(Prayer: IA NO: 1 OF 2006(TREVCMP 30 OF 2006

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant such instalments to the petitioner as may be deemed proper for payment of the disputed tax of Rs.1,17,202/- relating to the Assessment year 1994-95 APGST., pending disposal of TREVC 63 of 2006.

IA NO: 1 OF 2006(TREVCMP 31 OF 2006

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant such installments to the petitioner as may be deemed proper for payment of the disputed tax of Rs. 59,942/- relating to the Assesment year 1993-94 APGST pending disposal of T.REVC. No. 67/06.)

T.C.D. Sekhar, J.

1. As the issue involved in both these revisions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under AP General Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer-I, Nellore. The petitioner is engaged in the business of purchaser sale of tamarind, jaggery etc.

3. The petitioner claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs.28,63,302/- in relation to assessment period 1994-1995 and exemption on a turnover of Rs.12,74,006/- towards commission sales of tamarind and behalf of Resident Registered Dealers. The exemption claimed by the petitioner was allowed by the Commercial Tax Officer-I, Nellore through order dated 29.01.1996 in relation to period 1994-1995 and passed similar order dated 14.03.1996 in relation to period 1993-1994.

4. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Nellore Division issued notice dated 11.03.1999 in exercise of suo motu power of revision under Section 20(2) of AP General Sales Tax Act, 1957 calling for objections from the petitioners, as to why assessment orders dated 29.01.1996 and 14.03.1996. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted objection dated 07.04.1999 & 11.04.1999 to the said show cause notice. After considering the case of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner revised the order of assessment by separate orders dated 01.05.1999, through which the exemption allowed by the Commercial Tax Officer was withdrawn.

5. Assailing the correctness of the revision orders, the petitioner filed Tribunal Appeals vide TA No.904 and 905 of 1999. The said appeals were dismissed by separate orders dated 17.05.2006. Questioning the same, the present revisions are filed.

6. Heard Sri G.Narendra Chetti, counsel appearing for Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.

7. Perused the record.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have exercised the revisional power on mere suspicion and doubt against Form A-5 declaration filed by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the assessing authority has accepted the genuineness of the certificate/declaration filed by the petitioner, the revisional authority cannot conduct a fresh enquiry. He would further contend that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner, so as to get the defects corrected in respect of Form A-5 furnished by the petitioner.

9. It is further case of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no taxable event occurred in the hands of the petitioner either in entry-170 of I schedule or under entry-14 of II schedule, even assuming that the certificate submitted by the petitioner is not valid.

10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would submit that the declaration Form A-5 submitted by the petitioner does not contained the official Seal of the assessing authority as required under Rule 17-C (1) & (2) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.                   Therefore, the declaration form submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered and the Deputy Commissioner, Nellore has rightly revised the order of assessment and the same was confirmed by the Tribunal.

11. For proper appreciation of the case on hand, Rule 17-C of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 is reproduced hereunder:

                  “(1) Every person who is a resident of the State carrying on the business of selling any of the goods specified in the first, [second, third, fifth and sixth schedules] through his agent on his behalf, shall on every occasion such goods are entrusted to the agent, furnish him with a declaration in Form A-5.

                  (2) The Declaration Forms used by a dealer under sub- rule (1) shall be serially numbered and maintained in a book form, and shall, bear the official Seal of the assessing authority concerned.”

12. On perusal of the said rule, it is clear that the declaration form shall bear the official seal of the assessing authority concerned. In the case on hand, admittedly the declaration form filed by the petitioner does not bear such signature and therefore the same cannot be treated to have been filed in tune with Rule 17-C (1) & (2) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.

13. Further, the intention of the legislature is to see that every agent has to file the prescribed declaration form before the assessing authority to prove that the assessee is an agent and the principal has paid tax on the turnover, so as to claim exemption. In the case on hand, it is clear that neither the petitioner has filed the declaration form as per Rule 17-C (1) & (2) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 nor filed anything to show that its principal has paid tax on the disputed turnover to claim exemption. Admittedly, nothing is placed on record to prove that the principal of the petitioner has paid tax in relation to the disputed turnover, so as to claim exemption by the petitioner.

14. It is needless to mention, whenever exemption is claimed, it is incumbent for the person to place required declaration forms in tune with the statute. Admittedly, the petitioner not filed declaration form A-5 as per Rule 17 nor placed before the authority to show that its principal paid the tax on the disputed turn over, so as to claim exemption.

15. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity either in the order of revision or the order passed by the Tribunal. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the revision petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed.