N. Ratna Raju, Member (Deptl.) - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the revision order dated 15.06.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division revising the assessment order dated 02.09.1994 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle, Punjagutta Division. Basic facts relevant for adjudication connected to this appeal are set out hereunder.
(2.) THE appellant is a dealer manufacturing cement. It was finally assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle, Punjagutta Division for the assessment year 1993 -94 under the APGST Act, 57 on the following turnovers. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division on perusal of assessment record noticed that the Commercial Tax Officer's order prejudiced State's revenue when he allowed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 50,29,750/ - treating it as second sales of HDPE bags and levied only TOT on a turnover of Rs. 1,40,43,424 -00 treating it as second sales of HDPE bags from 01.07.1993 to 31.03.1994. These two components of turnover are liable to be taxed at the rate applicable to contents i.e., Cement since there is no separate sale of HDPE bags and contents. In the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of revisional power under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act fixed the tax liability applying the rate of the contents treating the sale of Cement and HDPE bags as composite sale.
(3.) AGGRIEVED , the appellant prefers this appeal and the substance of grounds raised is as follows: 1) The appellant was consistently selling cement and bags of separate terms to its customers and succeeded on this point in T.A. No. 539/86, dated 27.07.1990 in respect of the assessment year 1982 -83 in appellant's case. 2) The Deputy Commissioner (CT), ought to have followed the judgment as facts obtaining for the assessment year 1993 -94 involved in this appeal are the same. 3) The Deputy Commissioner (CT), purporting to apply new case law did not make out difference in facts compared to previous years. 4) The Deputy Commissioner (CT), disregarded the contention that there are specific letters which constitute express contract between the appellant and its customers on the terms of sale. 5) The reference to ISI specifications that cement shall be purchased in bags was not put to the appellant and proceeded on a presumptive approach without rebutting factual selling terms of the appellant. 6) The Apex Court's decision in Premier Breweries case : (1998) 108 STC 598 SC is distinguishable. 7) The Deputy Commissioner (CT), had erred in laying emphasis that statutory requirement to sell, cement purchased in container as required under Standard of Weights and Measures Packing Commodities Rules, 1977; and 8) The Deputy Commissioner (CT), had erred in holding that sale of naked cement is only the exclusion and sale in any other form is legally impermissible.;