Similarly, for the subsequent year 1953 1954 the appellant had to pay an illegal tax of Rs.
And the third issue was whether the appellant was estopped from questioning the validity of the assessment ?
According to the trial companyrt, the respondent had failed to prove its pleas against the apppellants claim and so, it recorded findings in favour of the appellant in all the three issues.
it is against this decree that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
As a result of this illegal levy, the appellant had to pay Rs.
It appeared that the decision of the said High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Shri Krishna Cocoanut Co. 1 , was in favour of the view taken by the trial Court but the respondent urged before the High Court that the said decision was erroneous in law and require reconsideration.
The said turnover of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 16,1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. No.
5.398/4/3 for the said year.
The result of these findings was that the respondents appeal was allowed and the appellants suit was dismissed 1 1960 1 Andhra W.R.279.
Ranganadham Chetty, A. Vedavalli and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
3,45,488/12/10 in fact represented sales of groundnuts and number purchases and tax was recovered from the appellant on the said amount illegally inasmuch as it is only on purchase of groundnuts that the tax is leviable.
1,159/11/,9.
In this companynection, the respondent referred to the fact that the appellant itself had included the transaction in question in the return submitted by it in form A and that it was making payments tentatively every month to be adjusted after the final assessment was made at the end of the year.
Thus, the appellant having voluntarily made the return and paid the taxes, it was number open to him to companytend that the transactions in regard to groundnuts were number taxable under the Act.
On these pleadings, the trial Court framed three principal issues.
315 of 1962.
IX of 1939 hereinafter called the Act for the years 1952 54 is companypetent or number and this question has to be determined in the light of the scope and effect of section 18 A of the Act.
Narasaraju, Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, T.V.R. Tatachari and P.D, Xenon, for the respondent.
This decree was challenged by the respondent by preferring an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
8,349/ .
That is why the respondents appeal was placed before a Full Bench of the High Court.
3,45,488/12/10 representing groundnut sales and companylected the tax on the total turnover from it in September, 1953 when the amount of the said tax was determined and duly adjusted.
This claim was resisted by the respondent on two grounds.
For the year 1952 53 the Sales tax authorities included in the appellants taxable turnover an amount of Rs.
January 25.
The appellant is a firm of merchants carrying on companymission agency and other business at Kurnool and as such, it purchases and sells ground nuts and other goods on behalf of principles for companymission.
Accordingly, the final adjustment was made in September and the total amount due from the appellant duly recovered.
The first issue was whether the suit was barred by s. 18 A of the Act the second was whether there had been excess companylection of sales tax for the two years in question and if so, how much ?
In its plaint, the appellant claimed to recover this amount together with interest 12 per annum and that is how the claim was valued at Rs.
It was urged that the suit was incomepetent having regard to the provisions of s. 18 A of the Act and on the merits it was alleged that the transactions in regard to groundnuts on which s lestax was levied and recovered from the appellant were transactions of purchase and number of sale.
8,349/ from the respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh, on the ground that the said amount had been illegally recovered from it under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 Mad.
397 of 1957.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the suit instituted by the appellant, Firm of Illury Subbayya Chetty Sons, in the companyrt of the Subordinate judge at Kurnool, seeking to recover Rs.
Besides, the appellant had number preferred an appeal either to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes or to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and so, it had number availed itself of remedies provided by the Act.
The appellant had filed cross objections claiming additional interest on the decretal amount, but since its suit was held to be incompetent by the High Court, its cross objections failed and were dismissed with companyts.
