SRIRAMA ENGINEERING CO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax revision case by the petitioner-assessee under section 22 (1) read with rule 40 of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act and Rules gives rise to the following question :

(2.) IN order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the material facts that gave rise to the same. The assessee-company, who deals in iron goods, manufactures distribution boxes among others which are specifically designed to fit in meters, fuses and cleats as required by the Electricity Board on whose order these boxes have been made with specific dimensions. For the assessment year 1968-69, i. e. , the corresponding accounting year ending with 31st March, 1969, the turnover pertaining to the sale of distribution boxes was Rs. 8,58,281. The Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada, accepting the contention of the assessee that the distribution boxes are only iron goods which are liable to be taxed at the rate of 3 1/4 per cent, completed the assessment on such basis and raised a tax demand of Rs. 27,895. 13 by this order dated 22nd May, 1969. The Deputy Commissioner (C. T.), Guntur, by virtue of his powers under section 20 of the A. P. G. S. T. Act, issued a show cause notice on 5th February, 1971, as to why the turnover of Rs. 8,58,281 pertaining to the sale of distribution boxes should not be treated as accessories to electrical goods within the meaning of item 37 (as it stood then) of the First Schedule which attracts the rate of tax at 7 1/4 per cent instead of 3 1/4 per cent applicable to iron goods.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal, T. A. No. 379 of 1972, to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of this appeal and some others on similar point by a common judgment dated 12th February, 1974. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the entire material on record, agreed with the view expressed by the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeals. Hence, this revision petition. Mr. T. Anantha Babu, the learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner, contended that the distribution boxes manufactured and sold by his clients are not accessories of electrical goods and, even if they are accessories, they are also containers and in which event the disputed turnover must be liable to sales tax at the lower rate applicable to the rate of container and the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous and illegal. This claim of the assessee is resisted by Mr. Mahadev, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contending, inter alia, that the distribution boxes which are specifically designed to fit in the meters, fuses and cleats can only be called accessories to electrical goods, but they are not not containers and, therefore, there is no merit in this case.