SCINDIA RUBBER WORKS Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These TRCs. are directed against the common order dated 25.4.1992 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) in T.A.Nos.1425 and 1426 of 1988.

(2.) A short question that arises for decision in these T.R.Cs., is whether raw rubber sheets were classifiable under Entry 101 of the First Schedule to the A.P.General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, APGST Act) or it was taxable as a general item.

(3.) The petitioner in both the T.R.Cs., is M/s Scindia Rubber Works. The petitioner is a dealer in rubber and is an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, VI Circle, Hyderabad for the assessment year 1978-79 and was assessed to tax through proceedings dated 14.1.1980 in Assessment No.3267/78-79. The petitioner had reported a total turnover of Rs.l4,56,363.80ps and a net turnover of Rs. 14,56,363.80ps. The Assessment Officer did not accept the turnover reported by the petitioner and had assessed the petitioner to a net turnover of Rs. l4,91,292.30ps which was subjected to tax at 6% being the rate of tax as per Entry 101 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act plus additional levies and the tax aggregating to a sum of Rs.95,621.91ps. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer subjecting the turnover of the petitioner's goods to tax at 6% treating the same as falling under Entry 101 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) CT. Before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) CT, the petitioner had contended that the goods sold by it being raw rubber and not an end product of rubber, the same should be taxed at the general rate i.e., 4%. The Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) CT by for his order dated 20.3.1980 set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) being of the opinion that the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) CT is improper, illegal and incorrect, had issued a show cause notice proposing to revise the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) through R.R. Proceedings No. 169/80 dated 25.9.1983. The view of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) was that there is no product known as 'raw rubber' obtained from latex, but different names were given to products according to its contents and method of production and since there is no production or name was given to the commodity yielded from 'latex' as 'raw rubber', the raw rubber sheets sold by the petitioner would fall under Entry 101 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act and liable to tax at 6%. Before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the product sold by it is 'raw rubber' and not a finished rubber product and, therefore, it does not fall under Entry 101 of the First Schedule to APGST, Act. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) did not accept the above contention of the petitioner and by his order dated 31.3.1984 revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner (CT) Appeals and restored the assessment order dated 4.1.1980 of the Assessing Officer, holding that the turnover relating to sale of raw RMA sheets i.e., a sum of Rs.l4,91,292.30ps is liable to tax at 6% and directed the Commercial Tax Officer to realize the differential tax of 2% on the turnover.