NOOKA AGAIAH REPTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether 'Atukulu, (Parched rice) and 'Muramaralu' (puffed rice) are 'rice' within the meaning of Entry 66(b) of Schedule 1 to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the common question in all these three matters and hence we are disposing them of under a common judgment.

(2.) W.A. No. 1/75 is preferred by the assessee against the order of Chinnappa Reddy, J, dismissing the Writ petition No. 7249 74 in limini. In the petition, the petitioners claimed that sales of parched rice cannot be subjected to the levy of sales tax at rates higher than one per cent. The learned judge dismissed the petition observing that it was open to the petitioners to raise this question in the assessment proceedings and if aggrieved by any orders of assessment, they can agitate the matter again in revision. In that view the learned judge dismissed the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the claim made by the petitioners.

(3.) W.A. No. 61/76 is against the order of Chennakesava Reddy, J., in W.P. No. 7516/73. The petitioners sought a mandamus interdicting the appellants, viz., the Sales-tax authorities and the Government of Andhra Pradesh from collecting any sales-tax from their sales of powa, muramuralu and pelalu. The learned judge gave a mandamus directing the respondents-appellants that they should tax these items in accordance with entry 66 (a) or (b) as the case may be, of Schedule-1 depending on the condition that tax at the purchase point of paddy has already been paid or not under Section 5 (1) of the Act thereby permitting multi-point tax. In the opinion of the learned judge, these articles are products of paddy and so fall under entry 66 (b) If the paddy out of which they were extracted had not been subjected to tax, they will come under entry 66 (a). The State aggrieved by this decision, has preferred W.A. 61/76. In W.P. No. 6909/74, the commodity which is sought to be taxed is parched rice. It is claimed that it is a variety of rice which comes within the ambit of entry 66 b) and the Government 's claim to tax the petitioner's parched rice under section 5 (1) of the Act is illegal.