NAVNIT ENGINEERING CORPORATION Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Girija Jagannath, Member (A) -
(1.) THIS appeal is filed questioning the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Sec'bad Division in Appeal No. 135/88 -89, dated 13 -12 -1988 whereby the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Abids Circle, Hyderabad in Gl No. 686/85 -86 dated 24 -5 -1988 was upheld. The appellant is a dealer in submersible pumps and connected accessories. The appeal has been filed questioning the orders of the forfeiture under Section 30 -C of APGST Act for an amount of Rs. 57,123/ - passed by the CTO, Abids Circle on the ground that the appellant made illegal collection of tax.
(2.) THE appellant is a distributor for K.S.B. Pumps Ltd., Madras who entered into a rate contract with the Panchayati Raj Engineering Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh according to which the manufacturers M/s. KSB Pumps Ltd., Madras agreed to supply their motors and pump sets at the prices mentioned in Annexure to the contract, exclusive of the sales tax and excise duty. The contract provides for the appellants to undertake the installation work etc., of the pumpsets supplied under the contract on behalf of the manufacturers as well as supplying other accessories required. The manufacturers supplied the pump sets to appellants at prices less than the rate contract prices, the difference being profit margin to appellant. The manufacturers charged 4% C.S.T. in their invoices raised against the appellant, who in turn raised bills against Panchayati Raj Department at the rate contract prices and charging APGST and CST at 4% in addition to the cost of goods. The CTO found that the appellant charged CST besides APGST in their bills and since the entire sales were intra -State transactions not exigible to CST, the collections under the head CST of Rs. 57,123/ - were held illegal and liable to be forfeited under Section 30 -C of APGST Act.
(3.) BEFORE the Appellate Deputy Commissioner it was pleaded that what was collected as CST was not actually CST but a part of the sale price and intended to recouped CST paid on the purchase turnover in Madras. It was pleaded that instead of showing the sale price inclusive of all taxes, the arrangement stipulated that APGST, CST and Excise duty collections besides the actual sale price were to be separately shown in each sale bill. Therefore, what was collected in the name of CST formed part of turnover and therefore not liable for forfeiture. Alternatively it was argued that, to the extent the collections went towards recouping CST paid on the purchases, atleast to that extent forfeiture was not warranted. The difference if any between CST collections and CST paid on purchases may be forfeited. As per statements submitted by the assessee such difference amount was Rs. 5,969/ -. Both the pleas were rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, forfeited and forfeiture of Rs. 57,123/ - was upheld.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.