Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Jairaj Ispath Limited and ors.

State of Andhra Pradesh vs Jairaj Ispath Limited and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 25, 2006
~6 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/445450

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Tax Revision Cases Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of 2000
Subject
Sales Tax
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue
Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6, 9(1) and 12

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Andhra Pradesh

Advocate K. Raji Reddy, Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes

Respondent

Jairaj Ispath Limited and ors.

Advocate S.R. Ashok, Adv. for S. Dwarakanath, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6, 9(1) and 12
Reported In
(2007)6VST661(AP)

Excerpt

.....defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - it has to give particulars like invoice number and date, description of the scrap, quantity set out in the bill and amounts set out in the bill......dated july 9, 1985 with respect to the tax paid on scrap while purchasing it. this contention was accepted by the tribunal and therefore, these revisions.3. g.o. ms. no. 1194, dated july 17, 1984 lays down:exemption of tax on sales of scrap made to mini-steel plants-cum-rerollers:notification. - in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the andhra pradesh general sales tax act, 1957 (andhra pradesh act vi of 1957) and in supersession of the notification i issued with g.o.ms. no. 498 revenue dated march 20,1984 and published at page 1 of part i, extraordinary, of the andhra pradesh gazette dated the 21st of march, 1984, the governor of andhra pradesh hereby exempts from the tax payable under the said act with effect from the 1st april, 1984, the sales of iron and steel scrap referred to in item 2 of the third schedule to the said act, made by the dealers to the mini-steel plant-cum-rerollers situated within the state of andhra pradesh for the purpose of manufacture of steel ingots or billets or rerolled finished products within the state subject to the condition that if the turnover claimed by the dealer to be comprising the sales of iron and steel scrap to the mini-steel plants and mini-steel plants-cum-rerollers situated within the state covered by the declaration mentioned below issued to the effect that it has purchased the scrap for the purpose of manufacture of ingots/billets or re-rolled finished products within the state. form of declarationdate:.... serial no.... 1. name and address of the mini-steel plant/mini-steel plant-cum-rerollers:2. no. of registration certificate under section 12of the andhra pradesh general sales tax act,1957 and the authority by whom issued:3. name and address of the selling dealer fromwhom the mini steel plant or the mini-steelplant-cum-reroller purchased the scrap:(a) invoice no. and date(b) description of the scrap:(c) quantity set out in the bill:(d) amount set out in the bill:i, hereby declare.....

Full Judgment

Bilal Nazki, J.

1. All these revisions raise same questions of law and fact and therefore, they are being disposed of together by this common judgment. For facts, we are taking up the matter pertaining to T.R.C. No. 10 of 2000.

2. The assessees are manufacturers and sellers of M.S. ingots. They were assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer for different assessment years. The assessees claimed that they were entitled to an exemption of sales tax on ingots as the ingots were manufactured by using iron scrap as raw material which had already suffered tax. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal. In the alternative, the assessees had contended that they were entitled to set-off in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1194 Revenue (S) Dept, dated July 17,1984 and G.O. Ms. No. 774, Revenue (S) Dept., dated July 9, 1985 with respect to the tax paid on scrap while purchasing it. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal and therefore, these revisions.

3. G.O. Ms. No. 1194, dated July 17, 1984 lays down:

Exemption of tax on sales of scrap made to mini-steel plants-cum-rerollers:

Notification. - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Andhra Pradesh Act VI of 1957) and in supersession of the Notification I issued with G.O.Ms. No. 498 Revenue dated March 20,1984 and published at page 1 of Part I, Extraordinary, of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated the 21st of March, 1984, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts from the tax payable under the said Act with effect from the 1st April, 1984, the sales of iron and steel scrap referred to in item 2 of the Third Schedule to the said Act, made by the dealers to the mini-steel plant-cum-rerollers situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of manufacture of steel ingots or billets or rerolled finished products within the State subject to the condition that if the turnover claimed by the dealer to be comprising the sales of iron and steel scrap to the mini-steel plants and mini-steel plants-cum-rerollers situated within the State covered by the declaration mentioned below issued to the effect that it has purchased the scrap for the purpose of manufacture of ingots/billets or re-rolled finished products within the State.

FORM OF DECLARATIONDate:.... Serial No.... 1. Name and address of the mini-steel plant/mini-steel plant-cum-rerollers:2. No. of registration certificate under Section 12of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,1957 and the authority by whom issued:3. Name and address of the selling dealer fromwhom the mini steel plant or the mini-steelplant-cum-reroller purchased the scrap:(a) Invoice No. and date(b) Description of the scrap:(c) Quantity set out in the bill:(d) Amount set out in the bill:I, hereby declare that the purchase of the above scrap is for the purpose of manufacture of ingots/billets of rerolled products in our mini-steel plant/mini-steel-plant-cum-rerolling unit situated in side the State.

Signature of the declarant

Status and relationship to the dealer

Note : This G.O. applies only to mini-steel plants and re-rollers.

4. A bare perusal of this G. O. shows that there was tax exemption on the sale of iron and steel scrap referred to in item 2 of the Third Schedule to the Act, made by dealers to the mini steel plants-cum-rerollers situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of manufacture of steel ingots or billets or re-rolled finished products within the State. So, what was exempted was sale of iron and steel scrap made by dealers to the mini-steel plants-cum-re-rollers situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh. This G.O. was issued on July 17, 1984 and another G.O. was issued on July 9, 1985 being G.O. Ms. No. 774, Revenue (S) Department. It lays down:

Set-off of tax paid on ingots or billets or rerollable scrap. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Andhra Pradesh Act VI of 1957), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that where a tax has been levied and collected under the said Act in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of steel ingots or billets or rerollable scrap referred to in item 2 of the Third Schedule to the said Act, the tax leviable under Section 6 of the said Act on the rerolled finished products manufactured within the State from out of such ingots or billets or rerollable scrap by the steel rerollers and mini-steel plants-cum-rerollers (in case of purchase of ingots, billets and rerollable scrap by them in the State) situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and sold inside the State shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied and collected on such ingots, billets and rerollable scrap with effect from the 1st April, 1985.

5. A perusal of this G.O. would show that where tax was collected on scrap, it would be reduced on the finished product. Therefore, the contention of the assessees was that in the first instance, they were exempt under G.O. Ms. No. 1194 on the first sale, but in any case if it had been paid, they were entitled to a set-off.

6. The contention of the Revenue on the other hand was that in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1194, a declaration, which forms part of the G.O., had to be made by the dealer, at the time of first sale of the scrap. If no such declaration was made, G. O. Ms. No. 774 would not apply.

7. The learned Counsel for the assessees, however, relied on a judgment of this Court in Arun Ispat Udyog, Secunderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh : 2003(4)ALD45 . This judgment was altogether on a different factual matrix. There is nothing on record to show that when dealers purchased the scrap, tax was paid, and as a matter of fact, it is nowhere contended that any declaration was given in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1194. The form of declaration attached to G.O. Ms. No. 1194 lays down that the name and address of the selling dealer from whom the mini steel plant or the mini-steel plant-cum-reroller purchased the scrap. It has to give particulars like invoice number and date, description of the scrap, quantity set out in the bill and amounts set out in the bill. G.O. Ms. No. 774 would not apply at all because its application depends on the fact that the tax had been paid by the dealer, who had manufactured the finished goods. We do not agree with the Tribunal's reasoning that whether there was a declaration or no declaration, the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 1194 would be available. Since there was no factual basis laid down that tax had been paid by the first dealer when the scrap was purchased, the assessee could not claim any benefits under G.O. Ms. No. 774.

8. For these reasons, we allow the revisions and set aside the order of the Tribunal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial