BHARATI AGENCIES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
M.Ramakrishna, Chairman -
(1.) THOUGH all these appeals are filed by different appellants, since the question involved is one and the same, they are heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. T.A. 315/96 is the appeal preferred by M/s. Bharati Agencies, Anakapalli relating to the assessment year 1992 -93 under the APGST Act. Whereas, T.A. 316/96 is the appeal preferred by the same appellant but it pertains to the assessment year 1993 -94. T.A. 371/96 is the appeal preferred by M/s. Bharathi Enterprises, Anakapalli relating to the assessment year 1991 -92. Whereas, T.A. 372/96 is the appeal preferred by M/s. Bharati Agencies, Anakapalli relating to the assessment year 1991 -92. While, T.A. 615/96 is the appeal preferred by M/s. Pushyami Agencies, Anakapalli. The details of the appeals are as follows:
(2.) THE dispute in these appeals relates to levy of tax by the assessing authority on the sales of wheat to roller flour mills by the appellants, denying the exemption claimed by the appellants in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 377, dated 2.5.1991 which plea was negatived by the assessing authority on the ground that the G.O. is applicable to roller flour mills only but not the appellants. The disputed turnovers relate to sales of wheat to roller flour mills. Reiterating the contentions urged before the lower authorities, it is submitted by the learned authorised representative that in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 377, dated 2.5.1991, both purchases and sales of wheat and wheat products by the Roller Flour Mills are exempted from tax. The said G.O. was issued so as to facilitate setting up of new roller flour mills in the State and to enable the roller flour mills in the State to compete with the Roller Flour Mills of other States by allowing them to purchase wheat at a lower rate and thereby reducing their production costs.
(3.) THE learned Authorised Representative has contended that the sale of wheat by the appellant to the roller flour mills are nothing but purchases by the Roller Flour Mills since sale and purchase are nothing but two sides of the same transaction and the lower authorities are not justified in holding that only purchases by roller flour mills and not sales to roller flour mills are exempt as both purchases by and sale to roller flour mills are one and the same. It is also his submission that when wheat and wheat products are taxable at first sale point in the State under the APGST Act and when the Government exempted purchases of wheat and wheat products by roller flour mills, its intention clearly is that the roller flour mills should be able to purchase wheat and wheat products without having to pay any tax. When purchases of wheat and wheat products are not taxable at all, there is no point for the Government to give exemption. That being so, the intention of the Government order is that the purchases of wheat and wheat products by roller flour mills must be free from sales tax. It is further contended that wherever the Government, wanted to exempt only tax leviable at the hands of a particular dealer, the expression "leviable" has been used. Similarly, whenever the Government wanted to exempt the tax payable by a dealer either on his purchases or on his sales, the word "payable" was used. The distinction is visible in the Notifications issued by the Government from time to time. The authorised representative relied on the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Vinayaka Engineering Company vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in T.A. No. 346/92, dated 10.2.1995 besides the batch of cases of M/s. Cardamom Trading Corporation Limited and M/s. Spices Trading Corporation Limited in T.A. No. 43/95 and Batch dated 4.9.1995 interpreting the G.O. 314, dated 28.1.1998, which exempted sales and purchases of goods by Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams and allowed the appeal holding that sales made by the appellants therein to Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams are exempt from tax under the said G.O. So it is his submission that the orders of the Tribunal squarely covered the point involved in the present batch of appeals.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.