Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1313 (AP)

Choadhry Brothers v. State Of A. P.

2001-10-18

S.ANANDA REDDY, S.R.NAYAK

body2001
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) BEFORE the learned tribunal two questions were raised. The first question was whether the painting charges for the job work undertaken by the petitioner-assessee at the request of the buyer forms part of the sale turnover. The second question was whether the Auto trailers are not entitled to concessional rate of tax on par with passenger vehicles, vans, tempos as well as Allwyn Nissan Trucks in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 659 Revenue dated 19-5-1982 read with G. O. Ms. No. 1735 revenue dated 20-11-1981. The learned tribunal answered both the questions against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Hence these tax revision cases. ( 2 ) AS regards the opinion of the learned Tribunal on the first question, no exception can be taken thereto, in the light of the judgment of this Court in State of andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Chowdary Bros. , 7 SPSTJ 71. The opinion of the Tribunal on the first question is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the above judgment. ( 3 ) ADVERTING to the second question, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that by necessary implication, it should be held that G. O. Ms. No. 659 Revenue, dated 19-5-1982 read with G. O. Ms. No. 1735 Revenue, dated 20-11-1981 covers even the Auto trailers and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to concessional rates of tax on par with other kinds of passenger vehicles specified in G. O. Ms. No. 659 Revenue dated 19-5-1982. The relevant portion of G. O. Ms. No. 659 Revenue dated 19-5-1982 reads as under: in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh general Sales Taxes Act, !957 (Act VI of 1957), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the tax payable under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act, shall be reduced to 8 paise in the rupee on the sales of the following motor Vehicles specified in item 1 of schedule 1 of the said Act. (1) Pick up vans or passenger vans (4 wheelers) (a) where the van is used for carrying passengers and the seating capacity does not exceed 16; (b) where the van is used to carry goods with a registered laden weight not exceeding 4250 kgs. (1) Pick up vans or passenger vans (4 wheelers) (a) where the van is used for carrying passengers and the seating capacity does not exceed 16; (b) where the van is used to carry goods with a registered laden weight not exceeding 4250 kgs. (2) Auto-rickshaws (three wheelers); (a) Where the auto-rickshaw is used to carry passengers and seating capacity does not exceed 4; (b)Where the auto-rickshaw is used to carry goods with a registered laden weight not exceeding 400 kgs. ( 4 ) ELABORATING the above contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government having granted concessional rate of tax in respect of pick up vans or passenger vans like 4 wheelers, there is absolutely no good ground or justification to deny the same treatment to auto trailers. What the learned Counsel for the petitioner would indirectly attack is that the action of the Government in not extending the concessional rate of tax as regards the auto trailers tantamounts to an invidious discrimination violating Article 14 postulates of the Constitution. That question cannot be gone into by the Court in the present proceedings. G. O. Ms. No. 659 revenue dated 19-5-1982 stands and operates. The Court is not called upon to review the constitutional validity of G. O. Ms. No. 659 Revenue dated 19-5-1982. The only thing to be seen is whether G. O. Ms, no. 659 covers the auto trailers, for the purpose of granting concessional rate of tax or not. If the Government really intended to cover even the auto trailers, there was no difficulty for the Government to specifically include the Auto Trailers also in the government order having included certain other kinds of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, the omission to include auto trailers in g. O. Ms. No. 659 dated 19-5-1982 is not an accidental slip on the part of the Government as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, but a conscious and deliberate omission. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Shiva Shakthi gold Finger v. Asst. Commissioner, commercial Taxes, (1996) 9 SCC 514 , and iffc Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, air 1996 SC 2542 . are not relevant for decision-making in these tax revision cases. Therefore, we do not propose to deal with those decisions. ( 5 ) THE tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. No costs.