The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Chowdary Brothers - Court Judgment |
| Sales Tax |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Feb-10-1988 |
| Tax Revision Case Nos. 91 and 96 of 1984 |
| G. Ramanujulu Naidu and ;Y.V. Anjaneyulu, JJ. |
| [1988]70STC263(AP) |
| Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 2(1) |
| The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| Chowdary Brothers |
| Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and Panchayat Raj |
| S. Dasaratharama Reddi, Adv. |
.....products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the..........assessing authority and the assistant commissioner for commercial taxes (appeals), hyderabad, rejected the assessee's plea of exemption. 2. admittedly the job of painting of auto rickshaws sold by the assessee was executed by the assessee. in fact no auto rickshaw will be allowed to ply in the twin cities of hyderabad and secunderabad unless the same are painted with yellow colour. it is true that the assessee collected charges of painting from its customers on separate bills, but it must be observed that the job of painting of auto rickshaws was an integral and inseparable part of the transactions of sale of auto rickshaws effected by the assessee. the definition of 'turnover' contained in section 2(1)(s) of the a.p. general sales tax act, 1957 is wide enough to take in all sums charged by the assessee while parting with the auto rickshaws sold. the view taken by the tribunal is undoubtedly erroneous. we accordingly set aside that portion of the orders of the tribunal and partly allow both the tax revision cases. no costs. advocate's fee rs. 150 in each. 3. petitions partly allowed.
G. Ramanujulu Naidu, J.
1. In these two revision cases preferred by the State against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the State urges that the Tribunal is in error in granting exemption on the turnover of the assessee's business relating to collection of charges on painting auto rickshaws sold by the assessee. Both the assessing authority and the Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Hyderabad, rejected the assessee's plea of exemption.
2. Admittedly the job of painting of auto rickshaws sold by the assessee was executed by the assessee. In fact no auto rickshaw will be allowed to ply in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad unless the same are painted with yellow colour. It is true that the assessee collected charges of painting from its customers on separate bills, but it must be observed that the job of painting of auto rickshaws was an integral and inseparable part of the transactions of sale of auto rickshaws effected by the assessee. The definition of 'turnover' contained in section 2(1)(s) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is wide enough to take in all sums charged by the assessee while parting with the auto rickshaws sold. The view taken by the Tribunal is undoubtedly erroneous. We accordingly set aside that portion of the orders of the Tribunal and partly allow both the tax revision cases. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150 in each.
3. Petitions partly allowed.