THERMAX LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant M/s. Thermax Limited, Hyderabad has filed this appeal aggrieved against the revision orders of Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad in Proc. No. RR. No. 1923/2001 -02, dated 06 -04 -2006 for the assessment year 2001 -02. The appellant is a registered dealer under the APGST and CST Acts on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The appellant is a manufacturer and supplier of industrial boilers and is also engaged in works contract relating to turnkey projects for design, engineering, manufacturing, erection, supply testing of boilers and also deals in sale of machinery items, whenever customer places an order. The appellant had opted for composition of tax in respect of the works contract under Section 5 -G and is a holder of L1 Certificate. The appellant executed a Works Contract of Renewable Energy Equipments. The Assessing Authority after having examined the transaction, completed the final assessment by allowing exemption on Renewable Energy Equipment under G.O. Ms. No. 55, Revenue (CT -II) Department, dated 31 -1 -2000. The Revisional Authority treated the Renewable Energy Equipment as taxable under Section 5 -G of the APGST Act, denying them the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 55 Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) BOTH in the grounds of appeal and at the time of hearing, the appellant has stated that the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and untenable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The turnover of Rs. 1,59,01,833/ - relating to Renewable Energy Equipment, according to the appellant should be treated as exempt as the same falls under Entry 228 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act and is exempted under G.O. Ms. No. 55. According to the appellant, the G.O. Ms. No. 55 is a general exemption under Section 9(1) of the Act and therefore any attempt at levying tax under the Act on the turnover concerned by the said GO is not justified. Any interpretation of Section 5 -G in such a way that the entire gross receipts which include eligible general exemptions under the Act is bad in law. The appellant has further submitted that the Revisional Authority did not place any contrary evidence or any material information in supporting the confirmation while revising the Commercial Tax Officer's order. The Revisional Authority's order is based on surmises and has no basis. The appellant has also produced before us a copy of Circular issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad in CCT's Ref. A111(3)/969/96, dated 24.4.1997 related to a similar G.O. Ms. No. 422. The circular very clearly states as follows:

(3.) THE appellant has also relied on the case laws reported in, 97 STC 346 and : 73 STC 370. They have further stated that the definition of sale under the APGST Act also covers a deemed sale. Further, they have also pointed out that the equipment sold by them in the works contract falls under serial No. 27 of the list of exempted renewable energy equipment given under G.O. Ms. No. 55, which fact has not been disputed by either the assessing authority or the revisional authority.