ASIAN STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-1993-3-2
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 01,1993

Asian Steel Industries Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Bayapu Reddy, Chairman - (1.) THESE two appeals are filed by the same appellant questioning the respective orders of the revisional authority (Dy. Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad) by which the orders of the assessing authority (Commrl. Tax Officer, Company Circle -II, Hyderabad) granting refund of the tax under Rule 27 -A of the rules framed under the APGST Act were set aside withdrawing such refund. The particulars of the present two appeals are as follows:
(2.) THE appellant is a manufacturer of wires, wire rod products etc. During the assessment years 76 -77 & 78 -79 he was assessed to tax by the assessing authority under the APGST Act as well as under the CSX Act. He had purchased wire rods from local registered dealers and paid tax under the APGST Act on such purchases. He later on sold wire drawn out of such wire rods to the dealers outside the State by effecting inter -State sales and paid tax under the CST Act on such inter -State sales of wires. He had filed applications before the assessing authority seeking refund of the tax paid on the purchase of wire rods under APGST Act in view of the inter -State sales of wire effected by him under the provisions of Rule 27 -A of APGST Rules during both the assessment years. The assessing authority granted such refund by the orders d/18 -1 -79 relating to the assessment year 76 -77, and 6 -5 -80 relating to the assessment year 78 -79 holding that the appellant had purchased wire rods from local registered dealers and paid the tax under the APGST Act and he prepared wires out of such wire rods and sold such wire in inter -State trade and paid tax under the CST Act and that therefore he is entitled to such refund under Rule 27 -A. The then Dy. Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta Division however took up both the said orders in revision by Issuing show cause notice, and after perusing the objections filed by the appellant he dropped further proceedings in the proposed revision by orders d/21 -4 -82 relating to both the years on the ground that wire rods purchased by the appellant and the wire sold by him are not two different commercial commodities and have to be treated as one and the same commodity. Subsequently the Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad however took up the said orders of the Dy. Commissioner d/21 -4 -82 in revision by issuing show cause notice to the appellant d/11 -10 -83 and passed orders on 30 -3 -88 relating to the assessment year 76 -77 and on 13 -5 -88 relating to the assessment year 78 -79 holding that wire sold by the appellant in inter -State sales cannot be considered as same as wire rods which he had purchased from local registered dealers, that they have to be treated as two different commercial commodities and that therefore rebate under Rule 27 -A can not be granted eventhough the appellant had paid tax under APGST Act as well as under CST Act. By passing such orders, the Commissioner (CT) set aside the earlier orders of the Dy. Commissioner d/21 -4 -82 and remitted the matters to the Dy. Commissioner for passing fresh orders in the light of the directions contained in his orders. In pursuance of such orders of the Commissioner (CT), the Dy. Commissioner once again passed the impugned orders d/11 -8 -88 setting aside orders of the Commrl., Tax Officer granting refund of tax and withdrawing such refund holding that wire rods and wire are to be considered as two distinct and commercially different commodities and as such the refund cannot be ordered under Rule 27 -A of the APGST Rules. The appellant has therefore preferred the present two appeals questioning the above said revisional orders of the Commrl. Tax Officer granting refund are set aside are barred by limitation and that even on merits, the said orders of the Dy. Commissioner withdrawing refund are not valid and legal and are liable to be set aside as the wire rods purchased by the appellant and the wires sold by him in inter -State sales are to be considered as one and the same commodity for purpose of taxation and not as two commercially different and distinct commodities as held by the revisional authority.
(3.) AS both the appeals are filed by the same appellant and as common questions are involved for consideration, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.;


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