ALLIED MARKETING AGENCIES Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.
LAWS(ST)-1993-10-3
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 21,1993

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Bayapu Reddy, Chairman - (1.) THESE three appeals are filed by the same appellant questioning the orders of the Deputy Commissioner who revised the orders of the assessing authority regarding the exemption granted on the sales of bale -boards and regarding the rate of tax applicable to the sales of firewood cases and plywood cases. The particulars of the three appeals are as follows:
(2.) THE appellant is M/s. Allied Marketing Agencies, Guntur who is a dealer in packing material. During the assessment years 85 -86 & 86 -87, the assessing authority subjected the turnovers relating to sales of firewood cases and plywood cases to tax at 5% by treating the goods as containers falling under entry 19 of First Schedule. The Dy. Commissioner effected revision of the said orders and subjected the turnovers relating to firewood cases to tax at 7% by treating the goods as planks falling under entry 145 and the turnover relating to sales of plywood cases to tax at 9% by treating the goods as falling under entry 91 of First Schedule. The disputed turnovers relating to sales of bale boards during the assessment years 85 -86 and 86 -87 were exempted by the assessing authority, on the ground of second sales by treating such goods as planks falling under entry 145 of First Schedule. The Dy. Commissioner revised the said orders and withdrew the exemption treating bale -boards as unclassified goods exigible to tax at every point of sale. The appellant has preferred the present appeals questioning the revisional orders regarding the above said aspects contending that the Dy. Commissioner has erred in passing such orders and withdrawing the exemptions relating to sale of bale -boards and in assessing the turnovers relating to firewood cases and plywood cases to tax at higher rate. As all the appeals are filed by the same appellant and as common points are involved for consideration they are beard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The point for consideration in the present appeals are: i) Whether the firewood cases and plywood cases sold by the appellant are to be considered as containers falling under entry 19 of the First Schedule and liable to be taxed accordingly as contended by the appellant? ii) Whether the bale -boards sold by the appellants are to be considered as general goods as opined by the revisional authority?
(3.) POINT No. 1: - The assessing authority treated firewood cases and plywood cases sold by the appellant as containers and taxed under entry 19 of the First Schedule at 5%. The Dy. Commissioner however came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of such goods and the other circumstances firewood cases have to be treated as planks falling under entry 145 of Fist Schedule to be taxed at 7% and plywood cases have to be treated as plywood sheets falling under entry 91 of First Schedule - liable to be taxed at 9%. In view of the material on record and in view of the nature of the goods and the other circumstances, the view of the revisional authority regarding the classification of goods relating to firewood cases and plywood cases sold by the appellant cannot be accepted. It is to be seen that the appellant is a dealer in packing material and he purchased firewood cases and plywood cases from various dealers and sold such goods in the same form to the manufacturers of tobacco who made use of such firewood cases and plywood cases as containers for packing the tobacco for export to foreign countries. There is no dispute about these facts. But the Dy. Commissioner however came to the opinion that such firewood cases and plywood cases, which are purchased by the appellant from others and sold to the tobacco manufacturers, cannot be called as containers as they were not in the form of containers, at the time of the sale effected by him to the manufacturers of tobacco and as they were only in the farm of separate planks. It is clearly observed by the Dy. Commissioner in his revisional orders that such goads sold by the appellant can be considered only as parts of a box ( containers ), but not as a box as such parts which are in the form of planks, were not assembled and nailed together so as to form a box of case and that such process of assembling and nailing together into box or case had taken place only in the hands of the tobacco manufacturers to whom they ware sold and who had made use of them as containers after assembling and nailing the planks into boxes. But such view of the assessing authority cannot be accepted in view of the nature of the goods sold and the other circumstances.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.