SAAYEE HIGHLEVEL INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No. II, Division, Vijayawada, in proceedings R.P. No. 33/95 -96 dated 12.2.1996 revising the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Governorpet, Vijayawada in G.I. No. 423/91 -92, dated 29.9.1992. The appellant was originally assessed on a net turnover of Rs. 9,85,960 -00 Ps. including the turnover of Rs. 7,51,620 -00, relating to sale of coffee seeds against 'G' forms, which was taxed at the concessional rate of 4 per cent vide Section 5 -B of the APGST Act. The concessional rate was withdrawn by the revising authority on the ground that the consumer made coffee powder by grinding coffee seeds which were purchased from the appellant and since both coffee powder and coffee were listed under the same entry 33 of the First Schedule to the Act, both commodities were one and the same that there was no manufacture as such done by the consumer and hence the consumer had wrongly issued 'G' forms which disentitled the appellant to concessional rate under Section 5 -B of the Act. The appellant is aggrieved by such revisional orders.

(2.) THE point to be considered is, whether the revision was called for and whether the appellant is eligible for concessional rate under Section 5 -B of the APGST Act on turnover of Rs. 7,51,620 -00Ps. based on 'G' forms issued by the consumer?

(3.) THE appellant objected to the revision on two grounds. The first is that the same issue was taken up by the Commercial Tax Officer by reopening the assessment and while the matter was so pending, no revision could be taken up by the Deputy Commissioner (CT). This ground is rejected as not tenable because the show cause notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer for withdrawing the concessional rate did not come to fruition and got superseded by the revision proceedings. This ground is therefore rejected. The second ground urged by the appellant is that, merely because coffee seeds and coffee powder were covered by the same entry 33, it cannot be concluded that both commodities were one and the same nor that there was no 'manufacture' of coffee powder from coffee seeds. Appellant also urged that the concessional rate under Section 5 -B of the Act was conditional and the manufactured article need not necessarily be covered by a different entry from the entry covering the raw -material for purchasing which 'G' forms were issued. Counsel for the appellant also contended that even if 'G' forms were wrongly issued by the consumer, the appellant could not be made to suffer. He relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited, Secunderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (21 APSTJ 61).