ANDHRA LIGHT CASTINGS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this T.R.C. is :

(2.) Entry 2 of the Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act") reads : @@ THIRD SCHEDULE------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ............... ...... ...... 2. Iron and steel, that is say, - At the point of 4 paise in the first sale in rupee. (i) pig iron and cast iron the State. including ingot moulds, bottom, plates, iron scrap, cast iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap. (ii) to (xvi).........------------------------------------------------------------------------@@ The said entry includes, inter alia, "cast iron" in clause (i) among the other declared goods in respect of which only a single point tax is leviable under section 6 of the Act. The question, whether various sub-items in an entry are one the same commercial commodity or are separate commercial goods for purposes of levy of sales tax, has been the subject-matter of various judicial pronouncements.

(3.) In Telangana Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994] 93 STC 187; (1994) Supp 2 SCC 259, the question which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, was whether "iron wires" which were produced from "wire rods" were separate commercial goods from "wire rods" and turnover of their sales was exigible to single point tax. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court left that question open but held that those two goods were mentioned under the same sub-item viz., (iv)(xv) and that the sub-item showed that "wires" were thought of as integral part of "rods" and not distinct from "rods", because the sub-item spoke about wires "rolled, drawn, galvanised, aluminised, tinned or coated" and that iron wires could not be taken as separate taxable commodity and if the "wire rods" which had been purchased by the appellants therein suffered sales tax, the same could not be realised from the sales of "wire". The case before the Supreme Court arose under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.