Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 599 (AP)

AUTO ROLLEX v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

2000-08-09

P.VENKATARAMA REDDI, V.ESWARAIAH

body2000
JUDGMENT P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. In this tax revision case, two questions are raised : (1) subjecting sale turnover of Rs. 3,61,895 representing the sales of parts/spare parts of rolling shutters to tax at 6 per cent instead of 4 per cent; (2) restriction of labour charges on the fabrication and fixing of rolling shutters, which is treated as works contract, to Rs. 1,11,116 only by applying the percentage of deduction towards labour charges to 30 per cent. As regards the first item, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal took the view that the items sold cannot be regarded as steel structurals, namely, angles, joints, channels or any other rolled sections and they have to be treated as general unclassified goods being parts/spare parts of rolling shutters. No exception can be taken to this finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the items such as angles, flats, sheets which are declared goods falling under entry 2(v) of the Third Schedule were sold and such sales cannot be taxed at more than 4 per cent under section 6 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with the Third Schedule. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The sale turnover that has been subjected to tax does not apparently relate to mild steel pipes, angles, flats and other steel items which are purchased within the State. That turnover has been exempted by the assessing authority itself. What has been subjected to tax is the first sales of parts and spare parts of rolling shutters, as seen from the assessment order. If in fact the petitioner had purchased rolled steel sections such as angles, joints and channels, the petitioner would have claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs. 3,61,895. The question of disputing the rate of tax does not at all arise. This itself is an indication that the sale turnover which was taxed at 6 per cent does not relate to the items of declared goods in entry 2 of the Third Schedule. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be rejected. 3,61,895. The question of disputing the rate of tax does not at all arise. This itself is an indication that the sale turnover which was taxed at 6 per cent does not relate to the items of declared goods in entry 2 of the Third Schedule. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal while considering the appeal of the petitioner for an earlier year held that the spare parts of the rolling shutters dealt in by the appellant were covered by sub-item (v) of item 2 of the Third Schedule and they being declared goods are liable to be taxed at 4 per cent only. It is, therefore, contended that the Tribunal erred in not following this precedent which is binding on it. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The order of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 746 of 1989 was rendered by a single Member (Chairman). Nothing precludes the two-Member Bench of the Tribunal to take a different view. That apart, the details of the parts and spare parts are not available in the instant case whereas in T.A. No. 746 of 1989, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that they are all steel structurals within the meaning of entry 2(v) of the Third Schedule. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on section 21(9) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and submits that the order of the Tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of section 22 (relating to revision by the High Court), be final. We do not think that this provision obligates the Tribunal to follow its decision for an earlier year mechanically. The finality attached by sub-section (9) of section 21 is a finality from the stand point of the appeal that was considered and decided by the Tribunal. The finality contemplated by sub-section (9) does not obviously extend to the appeals which were not before the Tribunal and which came up for consideration subsequently in respect of a different year. The interpretation sought to be placed on sub-section (9) of section 21 is, in our view wholly untenable. The finality contemplated by sub-section (9) does not obviously extend to the appeals which were not before the Tribunal and which came up for consideration subsequently in respect of a different year. The interpretation sought to be placed on sub-section (9) of section 21 is, in our view wholly untenable. As regards the next question, both the appellate authorities including the Tribunal held that no break-up of labour charges has been furnished and the component of labour charge for each item of work was not evident from the accounts. Hence, the deduction of 30 per cent as prescribed by rule 6(2)(iv) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was rightly adopted by the assessing authority. We see no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the T.R.C. is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.