MUKAND ENGINEERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the dealer in works contracts and on the roles of the Commercial Tax Officer, Dwarakanagar Circle, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was finally assessed on gross and net turnover of Rs. 11,15,77,800 and Rs. 1,31,93,850 respectively for the assessment year 2000 -2001 by the Commercial Tax Officer. On examination of the assessment record, the Deputy Commissioner noticed that the assessing authority has erroneously allowed the exemption of turnover of Rs. 9,83,83,950 being second purchase of iron and steel and M.S. plates. So, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) has taken up the revision and issued show cause notice dated February 27, 2004. Objections were filed by the assessee, and the Deputy Commissioner passed an order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went to the Tribunal and filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present tax revision case.

(3.) BUT , in our view, a mistake was committed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. Inasmuch as the proviso to Section 5F as it appears in the Act, does not survive in its original form, because of the case of Media Communications v. , the legality of the proviso to the extent places a restriction on the benefit under Section 5F to the extent "in the same form in which they were purchased by the contractor" had been removed by this judgment. Therefore, the first proviso to Section 5F has to be read without the words, "in the same form in which they were purchased by the contractor". The judgment was very clear in view of the last lines at para 18. We therefore, struck down the words "in the same form in which they were purchased by the contractor" to this proviso as void. The effect of the judgment was that these words are not read into the proviso. It clearly makes out no difference, whether iron and steel after fabrication into structures was a different product or the same product. Therefore, the application of the judgment of the Supreme Court or this Court to come to a conclusion that fabricated structures made out of the iron and steel were different products, is of no consequence. Even if it is accepted that the fabricated structures were different products, than iron and steel, even then they were covered by proviso to Section 5F in view of the law laid down in the case of Media Communications . That judgment has become final, and therefore, the same is binding on the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. To that extent, the judgment of the Tribunal and the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside.