SKYLINE TUBES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL against common order of A.D.C.(CT), Kakinada confirming the order of C.T.O., Visakhapatnam relating to the disputed turnovers. The appellants are dealers engaged in assembling, processing and supplying of iron and steel poles to their customers. During the assessment year 1991 -92 and 1992 -93, they supplied swaged poles by assembling and processing out of the M.S. Pipes purchased from the resident registered dealers. They also entered into agreements with certain customers for road laying and fixing the light poles. The assessing authority treated the electrical poles as falling under Seventh Schedule of APGST Act and levied tax at the rate of 6% and Addl. Tax and Surcharge. The appellant contented that they fell under sub -item xi of item 2 of Third Schedule and the products sold by them being what they have purchased only and not being new items, they could not be subjected to tax again. The assessing authority as well as the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on appeal rejected the contentions. The details of the disputed turnovers and other particulars are as given below:

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the A.D.C., the assessee approached this Tribunal through these two appeals reiterating its contention before the lower authorities. According to the appellants, the nature of the item was not changed from what they purchased i.e., M/s. Pipes and Tubes. They submit what they supplied were also MS Pipes and Tubes but of a specified lengths by joining one or more pipes or tubes after applying red oxide and in certain cases also fixing a base plate to facilitate the customer to pass the wires through the pipes. They relied upon : 74 STC 176: 96 STC 452: 97 STC 19 and (1991) 51 ELT 165. It is also contended for the appellants that the items that went into works contract could not be subjected to tax again in the light of latest judgment of AP High Court in 23 APSTJ 195 and the order of this Tribunal in M/s. Tokyo Bajaj's case reported in 19 APSTJ 179.

(3.) THE point for consideration in these two appeals is whether the disputed turnovers of respective assessment years were rightly subjected to tax?