ANASUYA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are filed by the same Appellant M/s. Anasuya Traders, Guntur aggrieved by the revision orders made by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur Division, Guntur revising the final assessments made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Main Bazar, Guntur for the years 1994 -95 and 1995 -96 under APGST Act. T.A. No. 111/98 is filed against the revision made for the year 1994 -95 and T.A. No. 112/98 against the revision made for the year 1995 -96. The Appellant is a registered dealer on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Main Bazar, Guntur and he did business in V. Beits, Transmission Belts etc., during the relevant assessment years in question. The Commercial Tax Officer exempted the turnover relating to the sales of Transmission Belts relying on the Judgments of Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Good Year India Limited (1988) 7 APSTJ p.50 and the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dunlop India Limited, Hyderabad (1988) 8 APSTJ p.97 holding that Transmission Beltings contain 66.7% Cotton and 33.3% Rubber and it is a Cotton Fabric subjected to a process of rubberizing and the same is to be classified as Cotton Fabric falling under Entry 5 of IVth Schedule read with Section 8 of APGST Act and therefore exempt from the levy of Sales Tax. The Deputy Commissioner revised the assessment in respect of the turnovers relating to the year 1994 -95 to 9% as per Entry 101 of First Schedule to APGST Act and he subjected the turnover relating to the year 1995 -96 to 15% as per Item 12 of VIth Schedule as Item 101 of First Schedule is shifted as Item 12 of Sixth Schedule with effect from 1.4.1995. The Deputy Commissioner relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Good Year India Limited v. the State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) reported in 19 APSTJ p.247 where the High Court dealing with the assessment year 1986 -87 held that Transmission Beltings are liable to tax under Entry 101 of the First Schedule to APGST Act though it is Cotton Fabric falling under Entry 5 of Schedule VI and the Hon'ble High Court distinguished the earlier Judgment of Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Good Year India Limited reported in 7 APSTJ p.50 on the ground that the case pertains to the assessment year 1975 -76 when Entry 101 of Schedule I was not in Statute Book.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the revisions made by the Deputy Commissioner the dealer preferred the present two appeals raising common grounds and pleading the revisional authority should have seen that according to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 102 STC p.539, Cotton Belts sold by the Appellants is Cotton Fabric which is exempt from Sales Tax as per Entry 5 of IVth Schedule. It is pleaded that the revisional authority erred in passing the impugned order mis -interpreting the decision of Hon'ble High Court in 19 APSTJ page. 247 in the case of Good Year India Limited where the question was Rubber Beltings but, not Cotton Beltings and a Judgment decided on Rubber Beltings does not apply to the issue of Cotton Beltings and therefore the revision itself is mis -conceived. It is pleaded further that at any rate according to the Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Feno Plast Case the rate of tax to be applied is only 4% as Cotton Fabrics are declared goods and higher rate cannot be adopted by the Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) THE point that arises for consideration is the validity and sustainability of the impugned revision orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in both these appeals.