SYED BRORS Vs. C T O VI VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises in all these three writ petitions. It is sufficient if we set out the facts in W. P. No. 3429 of 1984. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated January 13, 1984, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, No. VI, Vijayawada, proposing to assess the turnover relating to trailer parts at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent under entry 1 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessment year concerned is 1982-83. The assessment was completed, wherein the trailer parts are treated as general goods and taxed at the general rate of 4 1/2 per cent. This was sought to be reopened by the Commercial Tax Officer on the ground that trailer parts are exigible to tax under entry 1 of the First Schedule and should not, therefore, have been treated as general goods.

(2.) IT is brought to our notice by Sri. P. Venkatarama Reddi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that, after the filing of the writ petition, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A. P. , Hyderabad, has issued a circular bearing No. CCT's L. Dis. L1 (1)/401/84 dated February 18, 1984, clarifying the position. The Commissioner expressed the opinion in the said circular that tractor is not a motor vehicle, as held by the Madras and Punjab and Haryana High Courts and, therefore, a tractor-trailer cannot be classified as a trailer to a motor vehicle within the meaning of entry 1 of the First Schedule. Inasmuch as entry 50 as it then stood did not take in parts of trailer while it took in parts of tractors, the Commissioner expressed the view that the parts of trailers should be treated and taxed as general goods at every point of sale. (It is also brought to our notice that entry 50 has since been substituted by Act 16 of 1985 with effect from July 1, 1985 and that, according to the amended entry, even the parts of trailers are taxable at the same rate and at the same point of sale as the parts of tractor and tractor-trailer ). In our opinion, the opinion expressed by the Commissioner in the circular aforesaid appears to be reasonable and consistent with the scope of the entries in the First Schedule