BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-1998-10-1
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 30,1998

BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, Chairman - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order dated 24.12.1997 made in appeal No. 345/97/98 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad confirming the final assessment orders of C.T.O., Market Street Circle, Secunderabad dated 25.7.1997 in Assessment No. 2637/96 -97. The disputed turnover involved in the present appeal is Rs. 5,04,90,000/ -. The undisputed facts for disposal of the present appeal are as follows. The appellant M/s. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited is a registered dealer under APGST Act, 57. It is an assessee on the rolls of C.T.O., Market Street Circle, Secunderabad. It purchased power generating equipment from A.P. State Electricity Board (APSEB), Hyderabad on 4.9.1995. On the same day, the appellant entered into a lease agreement with APSEB. The period of lease is 72 months commencing from 4.9.1995 itself. The monthly lease amount is Rs. 63,11,250/ -. For the assessment year 1996 -97, the assessing authority issued summons to the assessee for production of books of account for verification as to the correctness of the turnovers reported for final assessment. The assessee has claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 42,91,650/ - relating to the sales tax collections. A show cause notice was thereafter given requiring the assessee company to file the objections regarding the lease rentals received for the period from 1.8.1996 to 31.3.1997. The assessee filed objections. The Department wanted to levy tax on the above turnover under Section 5A of APGST Act. The assessee claimed that the proposed turnover tax under Section 5A is not applicable to the first sales. They claimed that tax can be levied under Section 5E alone. The assessing authority did not accept the contentions of the appellant and passed the final assessment order dt. 25.7.1997. Aggrieved by that final asst. order, the appellant preferred an appeal before, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. The appellant reiterated the same contentions advanced before the assessing authority. However, the appellate authority stated in his order that the assessing authority had answered all the objections raised in the assessment order and so it does not require any interference. He also observed that he fully agrees with the findings of the assessing authority. He thus confirmed the final assessment order. Aggrieved by the said appellate orders, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
(2.) SAME contentions which were raised before the assessing authority and reiterated before the first appellate authority were again reiterated before this Tribunal with emphasis. The State Representative repelled all the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The point for consideration in the present appeal is whether tax can be levied on the disputed turnover under Section 5A of the APGST Act, 1957?
(3.) WE are of the opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on a short -point without going into the other questions deeply. There is no dispute by the Department that there was a lease agreement entered into by the appellant with APSEB on 4.9.1995. Even in the assessment order, it was clearly stated that the right to use the equipment was transferred to APSEB for consideration. Therefore, the disputed turnover is liable to be taxed as provided in Section 5E of APGST Act. According to the appellant, as the disputed turnover is liable to be taxed as provided in Section 5E of APGST Act., no further tax can be levied by the assessing authority under Section 5A of the Act. In view of the ultimate order being passed by us, as far as the facts of the present appeal are concerned, it is not necessary for us to consider and decide whether taxes can be levied under Section 5E as well as 5A of APGST Act. That question will be considered and decided in appropriate cases, in future.;


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