Judgment :- V.V.S. Rao, J. The common issue would arise for consideration in these revision cases filed under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (“the Act” for brevity). Therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. We may also mention that when TREVC.No.92 of 2011 was listed before this Court, we were informed that the other case being TREVC.No.50 of 2011 also involves the same question. Though cases are listed before this Court on 22.12.2011, the submissions are made by the counsel in the second case and none appeared for the petitioner in the first case. For appreciation of the points for consideration, it is necessary to notice the facts in TREVC.No.92 of 2011 (the background facts in the other revision are almost the same). The petitioner is an incorporated entity engaged in execution of the works contract. They are registered on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad (CTO), for the assessment year 2000-01. The CTO completed assessment on 28.02.2002. The taxable turnover was computed under Section 5G of the Act at Rs.90,71,616/-. The petitioner contended that tax has to be computed under Section 5F of the Act, which was not accepted. Assailing the assessment order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed on 27.12.2002 relying on the decision of this Court in M/s.Media Communications v Government of Andhra Pradesh (105 STC 227)and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s.Maycon Constructions Limited v State of Karnataka & Another (111 STC 322). The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad, in exercise of powers under Section 20(2) of the Act proposed to revise the appellate order on the ground that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. According to the revisional authority, a dealer, who obtains certificate in Form L-1 exercising option for composition of tax payable under Section 5F of the Act as per Section 5G of the Act cannot withdraw the option during the currency of L-1 certificate. A show cause notice was issued and the petitioner filed objections. After considering the objections, the revisional authority confirmed the proposal duly directing the CTO to revise the assessment on the gross and net turn over of Rs.92,28,290/-at 4% under Section 5G of the Act. A show cause notice was issued and the petitioner filed objections. After considering the objections, the revisional authority confirmed the proposal duly directing the CTO to revise the assessment on the gross and net turn over of Rs.92,28,290/-at 4% under Section 5G of the Act. The dealer then filed further appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner is barred by Section 20(2)(a) of the Act; there was no prohibition in the Act enabling withdrawal of option of composition of tax under Section 5F of the Act; there are valid reasons for the petitioner to withdraw option for composition though the contracts executed by the petitioner during 2000-01 involve more labour component than the goods and therefore, the composition is not beneficial to the assessee. Learned Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. M/s. Venus Castings (P) Ltd .( AIR 2000 SC 1568 ) and dismissed the appeal observing that once a dealer elects for composition at the end of the assessment order, he cannot be permitted to back out on the ground that the composition is not beneficial to him. Mr. V.Bhaskar Reddy, counsel appearing for the petitioner in TREVC.No.92 of 2011 would submit that there is no express prohibition barring the dealer to revert to the assessment under Section 5F of the Act even though earlier had opted earlier for composition of tax under Section 5G of the Act. He would urge that the decision in Venus Castings is distinguishable as there was a specific provision prohibiting such opting duty of a composition as method of assessing the tax. The issue that would arise for consideration is whether a dealer, who elects for composition of the tax under Section 5G of the Act for particular assessment year 20001 can withdraw the option and seek assessment of the tax as per Section 5F of the Act. The works contract as defined under Section 2 (t) of the Act includes any agreement for carrying out the building construction, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation etc. It is a deemed sale under Explanation VI to Section 2 (n) of the Act. The works contract as defined under Section 2 (t) of the Act includes any agreement for carrying out the building construction, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation etc. It is a deemed sale under Explanation VI to Section 2 (n) of the Act. The said Explanation was added by A.P. Act No.18 of 1985 w.e.f. 01.07.1985 after the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, which included the transfer of property of the goods involved in the works contract in the definition of sale:. A works contract, therefore, is chargeable under Section 5 (charging section) of the Act read with Explanation IV to Section 2 (n) and 2 (t) of the Act.There are two methods of computing the tax on goods involved in the works contract. The first method is stipulated in Section 5F of the Act and Rule 6(2) or Rule 6(3) (as the case may be) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules 1957 (“the Rules” for brevity). In this method, a dealer engaged in the business of works contract shall pay tax at 8% on his turnover of transferred property in the good, whether as goods or in some other form involved in the execution of the works contract. The second method of computing the tax on goods involved in the works contract is provided under Section 5G of the Act. The same is quoted hereunder. 5G. The second method of computing the tax on goods involved in the works contract is provided under Section 5G of the Act. The same is quoted hereunder. 5G. Composition of tax payable under Section 5F: (1) Subject to such conditions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed, if a dealer, who executes any works contract other than prescribed, if a dealer, who executes any works contract other than the category of contracts notified by the Government under sub-section (2), so opts, the assessing authority of the area may accept, in lieu of the amount of tax payable by him under the Act during the year, by way of composition, an amount at the rate of four paise on every rupee of the total amount paid or payable to the dealer towards execution of the works contracts: Provided that no tax shall be payable under this section on the turnover relating to the amounts paid to a sub-contractor as consideration for the execution of the works contract whether wholly or partly subject to the production of proof that such subcontractor is a registered dealer liable to tax under the Act and that the turnover of such amounts is included in the return of the turnover filed by such sub-contractor. (Provided further that if a dealer who executes a works contract of construction of apartments or buildings, so opts, the assessing authority of the area may accept, by way of composition, an amount calculated at the rate of rupees 4/-(Rupees four only) per square foot of the constructed area) (2) The Government may notify from time to time the category of works contract for which the scheme of payment of tax by composition under sub-section (1) does not apply. (3) Every dealer who elects to pay tax under sub-section (1) shall apply in the prescribed form to the assessing authority to be permitted to pay the amount of tax under sub-section (1), and on being so permitted, in the prescribed form, he shall pay tax as specified under Section 13 and 15 of the Act. (4) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a dealer, who purchases or receives goods from outside the State for the purpose of using such goods in the execution of works contract. We may also quote Rule 6B of the Rules. (4) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a dealer, who purchases or receives goods from outside the State for the purpose of using such goods in the execution of works contract. We may also quote Rule 6B of the Rules. 6-B. Composition of tax in the case of dealers executing works contracts:-(1) The dealer who elects to compound the tax for any year under Section 5G shall submit an application in Form-L to the assessing authority each year, within thirty days from the date of commencement of the year or within thirty days from the date of commencement of the business if he commences the business during the course of the year, as the case may be: Provided that the assessing authority having jurisdiction may on sufficient cause and for reasons to be recorded in writing condone the delay in respect of application received after expiry of thirty days from commencement of the business as the case may be. However, the delay condoned shall not exceed sixty days and delay shall be condoned within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of such year or the business, as the case may be. (2) (i) The assessing authority concerned, after conducting such verification as may be necessary permit such dealer, subject to the conditions specified in sub-rule (1), to pay in lieu of the amount of tax payable by him during the year, in respect of which such permission is granted, an amount by way of composition as provided in Sec.5-G. (ii) Such permission for composition shall be granted within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application during the year for which the composition is applied for. The permission shall be in Form L-1 and shall be valid for the entire year to which it relates. (iii) The assessing authority may cancel such permission in the following cases: (a) if the dealer fails to pay tax in any month within the time specified and, or; (b) if it appears to the assessing authority that the dealer has suppressed whole or part of turnover in the return filed by him or; the return filed by the dealer appears to be incomplete or incorrect; (c) if the dealer contravenes any provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. A plain reading of Section 5G of the Act and Rule 6B of the Rules would show that a dealer engaged in the works contract is given a choice to opt for composition of tax payable on the goods involved in the works contract. For the said purpose, such dealer has to apply in Form L-1 for each area. The specific mention of “each year” in Section 5G of the Act and Rule 6B(1) of the Rules and the use of phrase “such year” in the proviso to Rule 6B(1) of the Rules would show that the option exercised by the dealer would be effective in each assessment year. This is made clear by Rule 6B(2)(ii) of the Rules, which is to the effect that the permission in Form L-1 shall be valid for the entire year. This would conclusively show that the dealer, who opts or elects to pay the tax by computing the composition under Section 5F of the Act, shall be bound by the certificate in Form-L for the entire year. When once a dealer opts for composition under Section 5G of the Act read with Rule 6B of the Rules and obtains such permission in Form L-1, it cannot be varied nor the dealer can be resiled from the same on the ground that computation is more advantageous to him under Section 5F of the Act during the currency of the permission in Form L-1. In Venus Castings, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a manufacturer, who exercised option to make payment of duty by composition under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, can revert to the regular method of determining the duty. Therein, the manufacturer was engaged in making metal castings and as per the option exercised under Rule 96ZO(3), the excise has to be paid based on the total furnace capacity installed in his factory. Having availed the procedure for payment of duty by composition, the manufacturer claimed benefit under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which enabled the Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of certain notified goods. The appellate Tribunal held in favour of the manufacturer against which the Commissioner filed appeals under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate Tribunal held in favour of the manufacturer against which the Commissioner filed appeals under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After noticing the scheme in the relevant provisions and rules, the Apex Court observed that the two alternative procedures – under Section 3A(4) and Rule 96ZO(3) do not clash with each other; if the assessee opts for one procedure, he may opt out the same for a subsequent period and seek assessment based on annual production capacity. But he cannot have hybrid procedure combining both in the same year. It was also held that “any taxation measures composition schemes are not unknown and when such scheme was availed of by the assessee it is not at all permissible for him to turn around and ask for regular assessment”. The relevant observations are as follows. “On the reasoning adopted by us and bearing in mind that in taxation measures composition schemes are not unknown and when such scheme is availed of by the assessee it is not at all permissible for him to turn around and ask for regular assessment, we think, there is no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the respondents. There are a few peripheral submissions made on behalf of the respondents that in several cases the Commissioners have wrongly fixed the furnace capacity and that aspect has to be examined by the Tribunal in such cases. In these cases, therefore, we set aside the orders made by the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to bring the orders in conformity with the view expressed by us and pass appropriate orders.” As observed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, there is no procedure which enables a dealer to avail the hybrid procedure namely, for some time the assessment under Section 5F of the Act and for some time, composition of tax in the same assessment year. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these revisions. In the result, for the above reasons, the two tax revision cases are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.