SRINIVASA CYSTINE LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.
LAWS(ST)-1993-10-5
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 21,1993

Srinivasa Cystine Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Bayapu Reddy, Chairman - (1.) THESE two appeals are filed by the same appellant questioning the respective orders of the Appellate Dy. Commissioner (CT), Kurnool by which the orders of the assessing authority subjecting the respective disputed turnovers to tax u/s. 6 -A of APGST Act were confirmed. The particulars of the present two appeals are as follows:
(2.) THE appellant is a dealer on the rolls of Commrl. Tax Officer, Tirupathi engaged in manufacturing L -cystine from out of the human hair. During both the assessment years, he purchased human hair from unregistered dealers and manufactured L -cystine out of such human hair and exported the said L -cystine to foreign buyer. The assessing authority subjected the disputed turnovers which relate to purchase of human hair to tax u/s. 6 -A negativing the contention of the appellant that human hair purchased by him and L -cystine manufactured by him out of such human hair are one and the same commodity and such purchase of human hair therefore amounts to purchase in the course of export eligible for exemption u/s. 5(3) of the C.S.T. Act. The appellant preferred separate appeals before the Appellate Dy. Commissioner questioning such conclusion arrived at and the orders passed by the assessing authority. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Dy. Commissioner and as such the present appeals are filed before this Tribunal. As common point is involved in both the appeals which are filed by the same appellant, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The point for consideration in the present appeals is whether L -cystine manufactured and exported by, the appellant to the foreign buyer is the same as human hair purchased by him, and whether the disputed turnover relating to purchase of such human hair cannot be assessed to tax u/s. 6 -A of APGST Act?
(3.) THE appellant is engaged in manufacturing L -cystine which is used for manufacturing pharmaceuticals and which was exported by him to the foreign buyers. The purchase orders placed by the foreign buyer, with the appellant is only for purchase of L -cystine. The appellant had purchased waste human hair from various unregistered dealers and subjected the same to the specified manufacturing process and obtained L -cystine from out of such human hair. The contention of the Department is that the purchase order placed with the appellant by the foreign buyer is only to purchase L -cystine and not human hair, that the appellant had purchased human hair from local unregistered dealers and out of the same he manufactured L -cystine by subjecting the same to the specified manufacturing process, that such L -cystine manufactured by him and sold to the foreign buyers is commercially a different commodity from the human hair actually purchased by him and that therefore the appellant cannot claim exemption u/s. 5(3) of the C.S.T. Act relating to such purchase of human hair. As the human hair purchased by the appellant from local unregistered dealers was consumed in the process of manufacture of L -cystine, the assessing authority subjected the purchase turnover relating to human hair to tax u/s. 6A. On the other hand the contention of the appellant is that the human hair purchased by him and L -cystine manufactured by him out of such human hair cannot be considered as two commercially different commodities, that they are to be treated as one and the same commodity, and that inasmuch as the commodity purchased by him which is human hair and the commodity exported by him which is L -cystine are one and the same commodity, he is eligible for exemption u/s. 5(3) of C.S.T. Act and the disputed turnover cannot therefore be assessed to tax u/s. 6 -A of the APGST Act. Therefore the only point to be considered in the present cases is whether human hair purchased by the appellant and L -cystine which was manufactured by him out of such human hair are to be considered commercially as one and the same commodity.;


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