BHOORATNAM & COMPANY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the common facts and common points of law are involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order. The orders passed by the Additional Commissioner(CT), Hyderabad, hereinafter referred as (revisional authority) who revised the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, are under challenge. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The assessing authority passed three different orders on 8.8.2005 for the assessment years 2001 -02, 2002 -03 & 2003 -04 imposing penalty of Rs. 19,10,640/ -, Rs. 10,40,100/ - & 2,51,130/ - respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeals and the appellate authority by her common order dated 5.12.2005 allowed the appeals and set -aside the orders of the assessing authority. The revisional authority felt that the orders passed by the appellate authority are prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and revised the orders of the appellate authority by his impugned order dated 26.4.2006.

(2.) THE appellant is a registered dealer on the file of the assessing authority under APGST, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and CST Act, 1956. They are engaged in the business of works contracts of laying of RCC/MS Pipes and also manufacturing, supply, design, erection and testing and commissioning of water supply systems, sale of cement pipes. Their activities are within the state of Andhra Pradesh and also extended to other States. They are also having two manufacturing units of cement pipes at Gundlapochampally, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. The cement pipes manufactured by the appellant are used in the execution of works contracts and they also sell the cement pipes in the course of interstate trade and commerce.

(3.) THE assessing authority however, opined that the appellant/dealers are aware of the G.O.Ms. No. 496, dated 17.7.2001 by which Government has withdrawn the concessional rate of tax on the purchase of cement and therefore they are not eligible to purchase the cement against 'G' Forms and that the cement pipes are not sold but used in the works contract and that the tax was paid on the value of the goods used in the course of the execution of the work contracts and that the appellant has not paid tax on the sale of cement pipes and that they have not declared that the transfer of goods in works contract is also deemed sale and that they have not sought any clarification after issuing of G.O.Ms. No. 496, dated 17.7.2001 and that appellants are liable to pay penalty.