- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Guduthur Thimmappa & Son v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision challenges the order of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed an appeal brought by the petitioner against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur.
The assessee is the firm Messrs Guduthur Thimmappa & Son, merchants dealing in cotton and cotton seeds at Adoni, Anantapur District. The firm was provisionally assessed for 1958–59 on a turnover of Rs. 1,10,415. At the end of the year the assessee submitted a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 21,39,260 and a net turnover of Rs. 1,31,712.
The Commercial Tax Officer allowed certain deductions and rejected others. He allowed an exemption on a turnover of Rs. 3,61,663 in respect of sales to Jasraj Amarchand, a dealer outside the State, but made that allowance subject to verification of the claim and payment of tax by the buyer (Amarchand).
The assessee appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes but was unsuccessful. A further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was also unsuccessful. The Tribunal set aside the assessing authority's order allowing the exemption in respect of sales to Amarchand (aggregating Rs. 3,61,663) with the qualification noted above and remitted the matter to the Commercial Tax Officer, observing that the assessing authority should examine all facts, books and documents and then pass proper and reasonable orders of assessment.
The Tribunal's order is the subject of this revision. The revision raises three disputed items of turnover which the court considered seriatim.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether sales of cotton to Anglo-French Textile Mills Ltd., Pondicherry (value Rs. 2,27,460) constituted inter-State/export sales such that the petitioner was not the "last dealer" under item 5 of Schedule IV to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and consequently not liable to pay purchase tax in respect of those transactions.
- Whether the sale of cotton seeds (value Rs. 90,688-42 nP) amounted to double taxation (i.e., should be treated as part of cotton and exempt from separate taxation).
- Whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction under Rule 6(1)(j) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules for turnover on which Central Sales Tax had been paid (period 1 April 1958 to 30 September 1959), and the correct interpretation of "total turnover" and the operation of Rule 6.
- Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside the assessing authority's order (which contained the conditional exemption for sales to Amarchand) and remit the matter for further enquiry when the department had not filed any appeal against that order.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (as represented by Sri Kuppuswamy)
- With respect to the Pondicherry sales: The transactions were completed sales occurring within the State (since goods were in the State at time of appropriation), so under Section 2(n) Explanation II of the Andhra Pradesh Act and Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act the buyer (Anglo-French Textile Mills Ltd., Pondicherry) was the last dealer and the petitioner should not be liable to purchase tax.
- Alternatively, the petitioner argued that because the situs of appropriation/contract was within the State, the sale should be treated as intra‑State and thus the liability to pay purchase tax would rest on the buyer (Pondicherry mills) under the legislative scheme invoked.
- On cotton seeds: The petitioner's counsel faintly urged that cotton seeds are the same as cotton and that taxing seeds separately would amount to double taxation.
- On Rule 6(1)(j): The petitioner contended that amounts for which Central Sales Tax was paid should not be included in the total turnover for State tax purposes and that the assessee should be entitled to a deduction under Rule 6(1)(j), including directly deducting tax paid under the Central Act from the purchase turnover (or otherwise excluding those turnovers from the gross turnover).
- On the Tribunal's remand regarding the Rs. 3,61,663: The petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had no competence to disturb the assessing officer's order when that order had become final because the department had accepted it without filing an appeal.
Respondent / Departmental Position (as recorded)
- The Commercial Tax Officer allowed an exemption in respect of sales to Amarchand but made it conditional on verification and payment of tax by the buyer; the officer did not specify the nature or timing of verification.
- The department did not file an appeal from the assessing officer's order, but a request was made on its behalf to the Tribunal to enhance the assessment and disallow the deduction claimed by the assessee.
- The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessing authority's allowance (with qualification) and remitted the matter for proper investigation and assessment, finding the assessing authority's order insufficiently reasoned on the point.
- The Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner rejected the petitioner's claims on the issues now before the revisional court (as reflected in the opinion).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State Trading Corporation v. State of Mysore [1963] 14 S.T.C. 188 | Defines the requirement of a "related connection" between sale and export; that delivery outside the State as a contractual term indicates the sale occasions the export. | The court relied on this authority to conclude that where a contract required delivery outside the State (Pondicherry railway siding), the sale had occasioned the export and so fell within Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. |
| Singareni Collieries v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1961] 12 S.T.C. 765 | Similar principle to State Trading Corporation: a sale occasions export where delivery outside the State is a term or incident of the contract. | Used alongside State Trading Corporation to support the conclusion that the Pondicherry contracts were export‑linked sales and thus to attract Section 5 analysis. |
| Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.R. Sarkar [1960] 11 S.T.C. 655 | Explains the legislative purpose and constitutional source of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act: Section 4 locates sales outside the State (Article 286(2) read with Clause (1)(a)), Section 5 addresses import/export sales (Article 286(2) read with Clause (1)(b)), and the interplay between these provisions. | The court cited this authority to clarify that Section 4's object is to locate where a sale took place and that Section 4 does not override Section 5; it affirmed that Section 4 is not determinative where export/import concepts apply. |
| Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 S.T.C. 446 | Statement that the situs of a sale or purchase is irrelevant to its inter‑State character; sales inside a State may still be in the course of inter‑State trade or commerce if so connected. | The court relied on this passage to emphasize that situs alone does not decide the taxability where the sale is in the course of export or inter‑State commerce; used to reject the petitioner's argument that situs in Andhra Pradesh determined the matter. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court approached the central contest (Pondicherry sales) by first considering the statutory provisions relied upon by the petitioner (Explanation II to Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Act and Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act) and then by analysing the effect of other relevant provisions of both the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.
1. The court acknowledged that, under Explanation II and Section 4, the situs of a sale can be located inside the State where specific/future goods are appropriated in the State. However, it held that determining situs is not dispositive for the present question because one must also determine the nature of the sale in light of other statutory provisions (notably Section 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Act which mirrors Article 286 of the Constitution and prohibits State taxation of sales outside the State, in the course of import/export, or in the course of inter‑State trade or commerce).
2. The court then turned to Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which defines when a sale is deemed to take place in the course of export of goods out of India — specifically when the sale either occasions an export or is effected by transfer of documents of title after the goods cross customs frontiers. The text required interpretation of the phrase "sale occasions an export."
3. Relying on authorities (State Trading Corporation and Singareni Collieries), the court explained that there must be a related connection between sale and export: if the contract required delivery outside the State (and delivery was to be effected at Pondicherry siding), the sale occasioned the export. On the facts, delivery outside the State was an essential condition, so the sale was attracted to Section 5 as a sale that occasioned export.
4. The petitioner argued that Section 4 (and Explanation II to Section 2(n)) established that the buyer (Pondicherry mills) was the last dealer in the State and therefore the purchaser responsible for tax. The court rejected this contention, explaining that Section 4's purpose is to state principles for locating sales outside a State and to determine situs; it is not intended to displace the operation of provisions (Section 5 and Section 7) that identify the stage at which a series of transactions concludes for tax purposes where export or inter‑State trade is involved.
5. The court invoked Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Act, which deems that in the case of goods exported out of the State, the series of sales concludes at the stage of sale or purchase immediately before export. Using a combined reading of Section 7 and item 5 of Schedule IV, the court concluded that the "last purchaser" affected by item 5 is the dealer who purchased the goods immediately before export — in this case, the assessee. In other words, even though the situs might point to an intra‑State appropriation, the statutory scheme leads to treating the assessee as the last dealer for purposes of item 5 because the assessee's purchase occurred immediately prior to export.
6. On the question of cotton seeds, the court reasoned that cotton and cotton seeds are distinct commodities once processing (ginning and separation) has occurred. As the seeds were separated and thus ceased to be part of the cotton kapas, they were not the same commodity; hence there was no double‑taxation principle applicable that would prevent taxing seeds separately. The claim for exemption on grounds of double taxation was therefore rejected.
7. On the Rule 6(1)(j) contention (deduction for turnover on which Central Sales Tax was paid), the court noted procedural difficulty: the precise contention presented before the assessing officer differed from the argument now advanced, and no full factual investigation had been conducted on that specific contention. Substantively, the court analysed Rule 6's language and rejected the petitioner's interpretation that deductions under Rule 6 could be taken without first including the relevant sales in the gross turnover or that "total turnover" referred only to purchases. The court held that "total turnover" is wide and includes sales and purchases; net turnover is derived after deducting specified amounts from gross turnover. Accordingly, the petitioner's construction (allowing a deduction from net turnover or treating the turnover as excluded from gross) was unsustainable. The Tribunal's conclusion — that no turnover subjected to the Central Act had been again subjected to tax under the State Act and that the turnover taxed under the Central Act had been deducted in arriving at net turnover — was not interfered with.
8. Finally, on jurisdiction, the court considered Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act which gives the Appellate Tribunal broad powers including the ability to "pass such other orders as it may think fit" and to set aside assessments and remit for further enquiry. Although the department did not file an appeal and had limited ability to appeal against an officer of the department, a request was made to the Tribunal to enhance the assessment. The court found the assessing officer's conditional allowance (subject to verification and payment by buyers) to be inadequately specified and concluded that the Tribunal was within its wide powers under Section 21(4)(a)(iii) to remit the matter for proper enquiry rather than attempting to itself enhance the assessment without further investigation. The court therefore held the Tribunal's remand was intra vires and not perverse.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is affirmed in toto and the revision is dismissed with costs.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The Tribunal's decision that the petitioner (assessee) is the last dealer for the disputed sales to Pondicherry (and therefore within the scope of item 5 of Schedule IV as applied by the Tribunal) is upheld.
- The petitioner's argument that cotton seeds should not be separately taxed on grounds of double taxation is rejected; the seeds were held to be a distinct commodity and taxable separately.
- The petitioner's contentions under Rule 6(1)(j) were rejected: the court found no merit in the interpretation urged by the petitioner and noted the lack of precise presentation of the point before the assessing officer; the Tribunal's conclusion that no double assessment had occurred and that the turnover subject to Central tax had been deducted in arriving at net turnover was left undisturbed.
- The Tribunal's remand to the Commercial Tax Officer with directions to make proper enquiries regarding the turnover of Rs. 3,61,663 (sales to Amarchand) was held to be within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 21(4)(a)(iii).
Costs and award: The revision was dismissed with costs; advocate's fee fixed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred).
Broader implications: The opinion applies and interprets existing statutory provisions (Sections 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, Section 7 and Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Act, Rule 6 of the State Rules) and relies on established precedents to resolve issues of situs, export connection, and tribunal powers. The opinion itself does not purport to announce a novel precedent beyond these applications; its effect is to affirm the Tribunal's reasoning and orders in the facts before it.
1. This revision case is directed againt the order of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal brought by the petitioner against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur.
2. The assessee, Messrs Guduthur Thimmappa & Son, is a firm of merchants carrying on business in cotton and cotton seeds at Adoni, Anantapur District. He was provisionally assessed for the year 1958-59 on a turnover of Rs. 1,10,415. At the end of the year, he submitted a return disclosing a gross turnover of Rs. 21,39,260 and a net turnover of Rs. 1,31,712.
3. The Commercial Tax Officer allowed certain deductions and rejected others. He allowed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 3,61,663 in respect of sales to one Jasraj Amarchand, a dealer outside the State subject to verification of the claim and payment of tax by him (Amarchand).
4. Dissatisfied with the determination, the assessee carried an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. This appeal was not successful.
5. The further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal did not bear any fruit. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the assessing authority allowing exemption in respect of sales to Amarchand aggregating to Rs. 3,61,663 with the qualification indicated above and remitted the case to the Commercial Tax Officer with the following observations:
The assessing authority should first examine all the facts of the case, books of account and documents in evidence produced before him, make consequential enquiries and then pass proper and reasonable orders of assessment.
6. It is this order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that is the subject-matter of revision here. In this revision, the learned counsel for the assessee challenges the conclusions of the Tribunal on all the issues. Three items of turnover are in dispute in this revision case and we will deal with them seriatim.
7. The first relates to Rs. 2,27,460 being the purchase value of the cotton sold to the Anglo-French Textile Mills Ltd., Pondicherry. The facts bearing on these sales are these. The assessee negotiated the bargain with the Anglo-French Textile Mills Ltd., Pondicherry, by sending samples of goods which were to be tested by the mills, the price to be settled thereafter either by telegrams or letters. Purchase-notes were reduced to writing by the buyers and sent to the sellers, the assessee. The contracts were for future goods. After the receipt of the purchasenotes, the assessee bought cotton in the open market, ginned it, pressed it into bales and the pressed bales were earmarked to Pondicherry. Thereafter, weighment statements were prepared, the price calculated and the goods were insured in the name of the Anglo-French Textile Mills Ltd. They were then sent in a lorry which were taken delivery of after verification on the spot of the buyer. In the first instance, a demand draft for 90 per cent, of the value of the goods was sent to the assessee after the goods were despatched. The balance was payable to the assessee at the convenience of the buyer and after verification of goods.
8. On these facts it is urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions partake of the character of inter-State sales and that the petitioner is not liable to pay the purchase tax in this behalf as he cannot be deemed to be the last dealer in the State within the connotation of item No. 5 in Schedule IV to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that as they were completed sales in this regard, it was the mills that would constitute the last dealer and as such the liability to pay tax would be that of the mills and not that of the petitioner. It is also submitted by Sri Kuppuswamy, learned counsel, that as the goods were in existence in the State of Andhra Pradesh at the time of their appropriation to the contract the sales must be said to have occurred within the State of Andhra Pradesh and consequently, there is no scope for describing the petitioner as the last dealer within the meaning of item 4 of Schedule IV. This argument is mainly founded on Section 2(n), Explanation II, of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956).
9. Before we deal with the problem in the light of the provisions of law called in aid by the learned counsel and other relevant sections of the two Acts, it is convenient to refer to item 5 of Schedule IV, which is in these words:-
11. The short question for consideration is as to who is the last dealer who purchased the goods in the State. Sri Kuppuswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that it is the Anglo-French Textile Mills Ltd., Pondicherry, and not the petitioner that is the last dealer within the contemplation of the clause in question, since all the elements of an intra-State sale exist in regard to sales effected by the petitioner to the Pondicherry Mills and no part of the sales having occurred outside the State. According to the learned counsel, we have no option but to accept the theory propounded by him, having regard to the language of Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and Section 2 (n) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
12. We shall recapitulate here Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It recites:
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in section 3, when a sale or purchase of goods is determined in accordance with Sub-section (2) to take place inside a State, such sale or purchase shall be deemed to have taken place outside all other States.
(2) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place inside a State if the goods are within the State-
(a) in the case of specific or ascertained goods, at the time the contract of sale is made ; and
(b) in the case of unascertained or future goods, at the time of their appropriation to the contract of sale by the seller or by the buyer, whether assent of the other party is prior or subsequent to such appropriation.
Sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means every transfer of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business, for cash, or for deferred payment, or for any other valuable consideration and includes a transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract or in the supply or distribution of goods by a society (including a co-operative society), club, firm or association to its members, but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation or pledge of, or a charge on, goods.
15. Explanation II on which great emphasis is, laid in this enquiry runs as follows :-
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Central Act III of 1930), a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have taken place in the State, wherever the contract of sale or purchase might have been made, if the goods, are within the State-
(i) in the case of specific or ascertained goods at the time the contract of sale or purchase is made; and
(ii) in the case of unascertained or future goods, at the time of their appropriation to the contract of sale or purchase by the seller or by the purchaser, whether the assent of the other party is prior or subsequent to such appropriation.
16. We need not extract Clause (b), as it is not material here. The argument based upon the language of these sections is that as the cotton purchased by the petitioner and sold to the Pondicherry Mills was within the State of Andhra Pradesh at the time it was appropriated to the contract, there was a concluded sale within the State of Andhra Pradesh, and, consequently, the last dealer was the buyer, i.e., the Pondicherry Mills, who bought it in the State, and therefore, the petitioner could not be treated as the last dealer from whom purchase tax could be collected.
17. There are certain obstacles in the way of accepting this proposition. It is true that the situs of the sale could be located in Andhra Pradesh having regard to the terms of Explanation II but that is not determinative of the matter. To find an answer to the question posed in this case, we have first to determine the nature of the sale in the light of the other provisions of both the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. At this juncture, we will look at Section 38 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which is in pari materia with Article 286 of the Constitution. That section recites:
Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to impose or authorise the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods where such sale or purchase takes place,-
(i) outside the State; or
(ii) in the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India ; or
(iii) in the course of inter-State trade of commerce.
* * * *
18. So, if any of the transactions falls within the scope-of that section, there is a ban against the State Government levying a tax on such a sale. Therefore, we have to see whether the transactions covering this, turnover could come within the pale of any of these clauses. Incontestably, all these sales were in the course of export of cotton but of the territory of India. As to when a sale is said to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India is stated in Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That section postulates:-
(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India.
(2) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such import or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India.
19. We are concerned here only with Sub-section (1). According to that section a sale will be said to be in the Course of export if it had occasioned the export. What then is the import of the expression
"sale occasions an export".
20. The precise connotation of this expression has been given in a number of cases, two of which are State Trading Corporation v. State of, Mysore [1963] 14 S.T.C. 188 and Singareni Collieries v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1961] 12 S.T.C. 765. These decisions lay down that there should be a related connection between the sale and the export. It should be a term of the contract that delivery should be effected outside the State. If delivery is made outside the State under a covenant or as an incident of contract of sale, the sale is said to have occasioned the export. Applying that principle, there can be little doubt that in the instant case the sale has occasioned the export. It is not disputed that one of the essential conditions of the contract was that the delivery should be given at the railway siding of Pondicherry, i.e., outside the State. If that were so, it is a sale attracted by Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
21. The proposition that export sales are not, exigible to State tax is not contested. But what is urged by Sri Kuppuswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the fact that the sales took place in the course of export cannot fasten liability on the petitioner, as these are clearly cases governed by Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which means that the last dealer is not the assessee.
22. We do not think that Section 4 really comes to the rescue of the petitioner. The terms of Section 4 discloses that the purpose was to formulate the principles for determining when a sale takes place outside the State. This section was enacted by the .Parliament in exercise of authority under Article 286(2) of the Constitution read with Clause (1)(a) of the Article. It is needless to say that Clause (1)(a) deals with sales outside the State. The object of Section 4 was to locate the place where the sale took place. Sub-section (2) merely seeks to locate the place 'of sales which are not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
23. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.R. Sarkar [1960] 11 S.T.C. 655 at 672 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed : -
By enacting Chapter II, the Parliament sought as evidenced by the title of the chapter to exercise its power under Articles 269(3) and 286(2). By Section 3, the Parliament formulated principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and in so doing, it exercised authority conferred upon it by Article 269(3). In enacting Section 4, Clause (1), the Parliament sought to formulate principles for determining when a sale takes place outside a State and in enacting that section, it legislated in exercise of authority under Article 286(2) read with Clause (1)(a) of that Article; and in enacting Section 5, Sub-sections (1)and(2), it exercised authority under Article 286(2) read with Clause (1)(b) of the Article to formulate principles for determining the sale which takes place in the course of import or export. The Parliament by Sub-section (2) of Section 4 attempted to define when a sale shall be deemed to take place inside a State, and by Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provided that when a sale or purchase of goods was determined in accordance with Sub-section (2) to take place inside a State, such sale or purchase shall be deemed to have taken place outside all other States. But Sub-section (1) having been made subject to the provisions contained in section 3, it is evident that only those sales which were not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce should be determined under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 as having taken place outside a State.
24. This passage indicates the purpose for which the various sections were enacted and the source of authority for the Parliament to make that legislation. Its chief object, as we have already stated, is to state what is meant by a sale outside the State.
25. Sri Kuppuswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that Section 4 is not subservient to Section 5 as in the case of Section 3 but. that Section 4 has an independent operation and that if the situs of the sale is within the State of Andhra Pradesh there is no scope for invoking Section 5. We must demur to this proposition. As we have already stated, Section 4 is concerned only with sales outside the State and not concerned with the export or import sales. That apart, as observed by Das, C.J., in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 S.T.C. 446 at p. 481 "the situs of a sale or purchase is wholly irrelevant as regards its inter-State character." His Lordship added :
Now, even when the situs of a sale or purchase is in fact inside a State, with no essential ingredient taking place outside, nevertheless, if it takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, it will be hit by Clause (2). If the sales or purchases are in the course of inter-State trade or commerce the stream of inter-State trade or commerce will catch up in its vortex all such sales or purchases which take place in its course wherever the situs of the sales or purchases may be....
26. It is true that these remarks are made in the context of inter State trade and commerce. But they are equally applicable to export trade. It cannot be forgotten in this context that it is not within the competence of a State to levy a tax on sales occurring in the course of export or import as in the case of inter State trade or commerce. If that were so, we fail to see how the Pondicherry mills could be1 regarded as the last dealer whose purchase was inside the State and from whom the State could collect tax.
27. In this connection, we may refer to Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, from which we can gain some light:
(1) Where in the case of any goods tax is leviable at one point in a series of sales or purchases such series shall-
(a) in the case of goods imported into the State either from outside the territory of India or from any other State in India, be deemed to commence at the stage of the sale or purchase effected immediately after the import, of such goods ;
(b) in the case of goods exported out of the State to any place outside the territory of India or to any other State in India, be deemed to conclude at the stage of sale or purchase effected immediately before the export of such goods.
* * * *
28. If the problem is viewed from the angle of Section 7, there can be little doubt that in a case like this the sale is concluded at the stage of sale Or purchase immediately preceding the export of the goods. A combined reading of Section 7 and item 5 of Schedule IV would only lead to the conclusion that the last purchaser who is affected by item 5 is the assessee, as he purchased the goods immediately before they were exported. In the circumstances, we feel that Explanation II to Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, are of no avail to the petitioner and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in agreement with the department is unassailable. We have, therefore, to affirm the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on that issue.
29. The second disputed item is Rs. 90,688-42 nP. That is the value of cotton seeds sold by the assessee. It is faintly urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that cotton seeds being the same as cotton, they should not be subjected to tax as it would amount to double taxation. We do not think that we need give serious consideration to this argument. Undoubtedly, cotton and coton seeds are two different and distinct commodities. It is true that in their original state cotton seeds were part of the cotton kapas but after the cotton was ginned and pressed into bales and the seeds separated, they could no longer be regarded as part of cotton and as forming part of the same commodity. That being so, there is no scope for invoking the doctrine of double taxation. The claim in this behalf was rightly rejected.
30. We then come to the claim founded on Rule 6 (1)(j) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. The amount involved in the claim bearing on this rule covers sales of inter-State character for the period 1st April, 1958, to 30th September, 1959. In regard to this turnover, what is urged by the learned counsel for the assessee is that since sales tax was paid under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the assessee is entitled to have it deducted from his purchase turnover, without including it in the gross turnover.
31. Before we refer to Rule 6 around which the controversy revolves on this aspect of the matter, we will do well to state here that the objection that was preferred by the assessee was formulated altogether in a different way before the Commercial Tax Officer. No claim seems to have been put forward before the Commercial Tax Officer for deduction of the turnover in question out of the purchase turnover on the footing of Rule 6 (1)(j). On the other hand a request was made to make the period 1st April, 1958, to 30th September, 1959, divided into two, so that the assessee could have the benefit of Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which came into effect in October, 1958. With regard to the latter half of that year, the assessing authority gave relief to the assessee having regard to the provisions of section 15. In the appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, no doubt the contention urged was that the cotton, which was subjected to sales tax during the period 1st April, 1958, to 30th September, 1959, should not be taxed on the purchase value according to Rule 6 (1)(j) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. So, there is some similarity between the objection raised there and the contention urged here. But the Deputy Commissioner overruled that objection on the ground that the amounts were not identical and hence the relief claimed was inadmissible. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim in this behalf, being of opinion that no turnover subjected to Central sales tax had been again subjected to tax under the Act and that the order of the assessing authority showed that the turnover which had been assessed to tax under the Central Act had been deducted in arriving at the net turnover.
32. It is thus seen that since the point was not presented before the Commercial Tax Officer in the form in which it is now made, there has been no investigation into facts and there is some difficulty in our giving a decision on this issue.
33. However, Sri Kuppuswamy, learned counsel, argues that his case throughout has been that in order to enable the assessee to get the benefit of Rule 6 (1)(j) and other relevant rules he need not include the amounts for which goods sold are liable to tax under the Central Act in his total turnover and that he is entitled to ask for deduction of the tax paid by him out of the purchase turnover.
34. Before we deal with this contention, it is necessary to refer to Rule 6. Rule 6 (omitting the portion not relevant) says :-
(1) The tax or taxes under Sections 5,6, or notified under Section 9(1) shall be levied on the net turnover of a dealer. In determining the net turnover, the amounts specified in Clauses (a) to (1) shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of a dealer-
37. The argument of Sri Kuppuswamy on the basis of this rule is two-fold, namely, (i) that in order to claim a deduction it is not necessary for an assessee to include the sales in the gross turnover and (ii) that the turnover contemplated by the rule relates only to purchase and do not take in sales. We find it difficult to accede to this theory. The very language of Rule 6 indicates that the total turnover should consist of all the transactions whether they be subjected to tax under the Central Act or whether they be exempted from tax. That this is so is clear from the expressions "shall be levied on the net. turnover of a dealer" and also "deducted from the total turnover of a dealer". Surely, the net turnover is arrived at only after deducting the amounts mentioned in the rule out of the gross turnover. This is only brought out by the other clauses, such as Clause (d) which allows a deduction of all amounts for which goods specified in Schedule V are sold from the total turnover. Schedule V gives a list of goods exempted. If the argument of Sri Kuppuswamy were to be accepted it would amount to this. In regard to the deductions under Clause (a) without including the exempted goods in the turnover, an assessee could get a deduction from the turnover relating to the other sales. In other words, this will be deducted from out of the net turnover. The same thing applies to Clause (j) also. Indeed the object of this rule is not to enable an assessee to get a deduction out of the net turnover. It is only to ascertain the net turnover that all these rules are made. The net turnover is always ascertained after deducting certain things out of the gross turnover. As already mentioned, all the other clauses of Rule 6 are pointers to the same conclusion. It is not necessary to elaborate this point any further.
38. Coming to the other limb of the argument, namely, that the turnover here means only purchase turnover, we do not think that it can be accepted. The expression "total turnover" is of wide import and there is no necessity for us to read any restriction into it as being confined to purchase turnover alone. It cannot be disputed that the turnover of an assessee includes both the sales and purchases. That this is so, is evident from several of the clauses of the rule itself. Further the very return submitted by the assessee clearly shows that he has included both the sales and the purchases in the turnover. It is only after showing the sales as well as the purchases that he claimed a deduction. It is needless for us to pursue this topic any further. Sufficient it is to say that the argument in this behalf has no substance. It follows that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in this behalf also.
39. The only question that survives is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Commercial Tax Officer in regard to the turnover of Rs. 3,61,663. The submission of Sri Kuppuswamy in this behalf is that it was not within the competence of the Tribunal to disturb that order when it had become final by reason of the department having accepted it without filing any appeal.
40. The answer to this contention depends upon the interpretation we give to Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, from which the Tribunal derives its power. It says :
(4)(a) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal, a reasonable opportunity of being heard-
(i) confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or the penalty or both ; or
(ii) set aside the assessment or the penalty, or both, and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after such further enquiry as may be directed; or
(iii) pass such other orders as it may think fit.
41. We are unconcerned with the other provisions of this Sub-section and so they need not be extracted here.
42. As already mentioned, the Commercial Tax Officer without deciding whether the turnover in question was subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and whether it was paid by Jesraj Amarchand, straightway gave relief to the assessee with the rider "subject to verification of claim and payment of tax by buyers including Jesraj Amarchand". This was really a very curious order. The Commercial Tax Officer had not stated as to when it was to be ascertained, whether that turnover was made exigible to tax and, if so, whether the tax was paid by Jesraj Amarchand.
43. Though the department did not file an appeal, a request was made to the Tribunal on its behalf to enhance the assessment in this regard disallowing the claim of the assessee. No appeal was filed by the department for the obvious reason that it is not competent for the department to take in appeal an order of one of the officers of the department. It is for that reason that large powers are vested in the Tribunal. The section empowers the Tribunal to pass such orders as it may think fit obviously for correcting the mistakes committed by the department. In this case, the Appellate Tribunal instead of enhancing the assessment remanded the case to the Commercial Tax Officer to investigate into the matter on the material available to him. If really it is competent for the Appellate Tribunal to enhance the assessment under Section 21(4)(a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act we fail to see how the power to direct the Commercial Tax Officer to go into the matter which is incidental to the question of enhancement cannot be read into it. The Tribunal thought that instead of itself increasing the assessment and disallowing the deduction it could direct the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the matter on the evidence before him.
44. We need not be detained here any further, having regard to the fact that Clause (iii) of Sub-section (4)(a) clothes the Tribunal with wide powers, i.e., it may pass such other oders as it may think fit. In this case, it cannot be postulated that the order of the Tribunal is in any way perverse. There can, therefore, be little doubt that the order impeached comes within the purview of Section 21, Sub-section (4)(a)(iii). In the circumstances, we feel that no exception could be taken to this part of the order of the Tribunal either.
45. It follows that the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has to be affirmed in toto. In the result, the tax revision case is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred).
Alert