YESWANTH TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals preferred by the appellant give rise for adjudication of this point. Whether Maize Flour is taxable as residuary entry under VII Schedule to the APGST Act, 57 or exempt able under G.O. Ms. No. 92, Revenue dated 30.01.1989?

(2.) THE appellant is the same. Assessment years are 1993 -94, 1994 -95 and 1996 -97. Grounds raised are common. And arguments advanced are common. We therefore propose to dispose of these appeals by a common order. Before embarking upon adjudication we may record a brief account of the facts taking the assessment year 1993 -94 as reference.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Representative for the State. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that Maize and Maize Flour are not different from each other for the purpose of taxation. He submitted that the revisional authority incorrectly referred to Entries 198 and 144 of the First Schedule which related to Maize flakes and Ravva. He submitted that the intention of the legislature in not classifying the Maize Flour in the schedule is not to tax the commodity. He further submitted that Maize is generally exempted under G.O. Ms. No. 92, dated 30.01.1989 without any conditions. He finally submitted that the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case between Anandi Roller Flour Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes : (2001) 122 STC 597 held that Wheat and Wheat products are one and the same and applying the analogy. Maize and Maize Flour had to be held as one and the same commodity generally exempted under G.O. Ms. No. 92, dated 30.01.1989. Counsel accordingly urges that the appeal be allowed. On the other hand, the learned State Representative submitted that Maize falls under Entry 18 of III Schedule of the Act taxable at the point of purchase. Government by G.O. Ms. No. 92, dated 30.01.1989 exempted the sale or purchase of certain declared goods. Maize Flour ceased to be declared goods as held by the Apex Court in the case between Tirupati Roller Flour Mills Vs. State of A.P., (1993) 91 STC 408. He further quoted the A.P. High Court's judgment in the case between Udatha Narasimha Rao & Co., Vs. State of A.P. : (1982) 51 STC 126 wherein their Lordships of the A.P. High Court held that expression "that is to say" in Clause (i) of Section 14 of the CST Act is clearly indicative of the intendment of the Parliament that the "Cereals" mentioned therein are exhaustive. In such a case it is not permissible to give an extended meaning to "Cereals". He argued therefore that the G.O. cited exempted the purchase event of Maize but not the sale event of Maize Flour and hence the sales of Maize Flour is outside the ambit of the said G.O. Hence, Maize Flour is classifiable as residuary Entry under VII schedule as correctly done by the assessing authority and the revisional authority. In the circumstances, he urges that the appeal be dismissed.