Auto Rollex Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Auto Rollex vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 09, 2000

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/443414

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/443414
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: P. Venkatarama Reddi and ;V. Eswaraiah, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 09, 2000
Case Number: Tax Revision Case No. 42 of 1992
Subject: Sales Tax
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Sales Tax - labour charges - Sections 6 and 21 (9) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - appellant claimed that sale of parts of rolling shutters should be taxed at 4% and challenged deduction of 30% as labour charges in respect of work contract - contended that parts of rolling shutters falls in category ...

Key legal issue: Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6 and 21(9)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Auto Rollex

Advocate A.V.S. Ramakrishnaiah, Adv.

Respondent

State of Andhra Pradesh

Legal References

Acts: Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6 and 21(9)
Reported In: [2001]122STC447(AP)

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........items which are purchased within the state. that turnover has been exempted by the assessing authority itself. what has been subjected to tax is the first sales of parts and spare parts of rolling shutters, as seen from the assessment order. if in fact the petitioner had purchased rolled steel sections such as angles, joints and channels, the petitioner would have claimed exemption on the turnover of rs. 3,61,895. the question of disputing the rate of tax does not at all arise. this itself is an indication that the sale turnover which was taxed at 6 per cent does not relate to the items of declared goods in entry 2 of the third schedule. the contention of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be rejected.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal while considering the appeal of the petitioner for an earlier year held that the spare parts of the rolling shutters dealt in by the appellant were covered by sub-item (v) of item 2 of the third schedule and they being declared goods are liable to be taxed at 4 per cent only. it is, therefore, contended that the tribunal erred in not following this precedent which is binding on it. we find it difficult to accept this contention. the order of the tribunal in t.a. no. 746 of 1989 was rendered by a single member (chairman). nothing precludes the two-member bench of the tribunal to take a different view. that apart, the details of the parts and spare parts are not available in the instant case whereas in t.a. no. 746 of 1989, the tribunal proceeded on the basis that they are all steel structurals within the meaning of entry 2(v) of the third schedule. the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on section 21(9) of the a.p. general sales tax act, 1957 and submits that the order of the tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of section 22 (relating to revision by the high court), be final. we do not think that this provision obligates the tribunal to follow its decision for an earlier.....

Full Judgment

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.

1. In this tax revision case, two questions are raised : (1) subjecting sale turnover of Rs. 3,61,895 representing the sales of parts/spare parts of rolling shutters to tax at 6 per cent instead of 4 per cent ; (2) restriction of labour charges on the fabrication and fixing of rolling shutters, which is treated as works contract, to Rs. 1,11,116 only by applying the percentage of deduction towards labour charges to 30 per cent.

2. As regards the first item, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal took the view that the items sold cannot be regarded as steel structurals, namely, angles, joints, channels or any other rolled sections and they have to be treated as general unclassified goods being parts/spare parts of rolling shutters. No exception can be taken to this finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the items such as angles, flats, sheets which are declared goods falling under entry 2(v) of the Third Schedule were sold and such sales cannot be taxed at more than 4 per cent under Section 6 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with the Third Schedule. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The sale turnover that has been subjected to tax does not apparently relate to mild steel pipes, angles, flats and other steel items which are purchased within the State. That turnover has been exempted by the assessing authority itself. What has been subjected to tax is the first sales of parts and spare parts of rolling shutters, as seen from the assessment order. If in fact the petitioner had purchased rolled steel sections such as angles, joints and channels, the petitioner would have claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs. 3,61,895. The question of disputing the rate of tax does not at all arise. This itself is an indication that the sale turnover which was taxed at 6 per cent does not relate to the items of declared goods in entry 2 of the Third Schedule. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal while considering the appeal of the petitioner for an earlier year held that the spare parts of the rolling shutters dealt in by the appellant were covered by sub-item (v) of item 2 of the Third Schedule and they being declared goods are liable to be taxed at 4 per cent only. It is, therefore, contended that the Tribunal erred in not following this precedent which is binding on it. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The order of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 746 of 1989 was rendered by a single Member (Chairman). Nothing precludes the two-Member Bench of the Tribunal to take a different view. That apart, the details of the parts and spare parts are not available in the instant case whereas in T.A. No. 746 of 1989, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that they are all steel structurals within the meaning of entry 2(v) of the Third Schedule. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 21(9) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and submits that the order of the Tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of Section 22 (relating to revision by the High Court), be final. We do not think that this provision obligates the Tribunal to follow its decision for an earlier year mechanically. The finality attached by Sub-section (9) of Section 21 is a finality from the stand point of the appeal that was considered and decided by the Tribunal. The finality contemplated by Sub-section (9) does not obviously extend to the appeals which were not before the Tribunal and which came up for consideration subsequently in respect of a different year. The interpretation sought to be placed on Sub-section (9) of Section 21 is, in our view wholly untenable.

4. As regards the next question, both the appellate authorities including the Tribunal held that no break-up of labour charges has been furnished and the component of labour charge for each item of work was not evident from the accounts. Hence, the deduction of 30 per cent as prescribed by Rule 6(2)(iv) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was rightly adopted by the assessing authority. We see no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.

In the result, the T.R.C. is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Auto Rollex vs State of Andhra Pradesh Same Subject Sales Tax Same Judge P. Venkatarama Reddi and ;V. Eswaraiah, JJ. Acts & Sections Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6 and 2...

Sales Tax