CENTURY TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-1998-2-13
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 24,1998

Century Trading Company Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Ramakrishna, Chairman - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred aggrieved against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No. II, Division Vijayawada in R.P. No. 98/96 -97, dated 21.4.1997 revising the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharampuram, Vijayawada in G.I. No. 1933/95 -96, dated 18.11.1996. In the impugned orders of the Revisional Authority held that as regards the turnover of Rs. 26,19,150/ - which relates to plastic items, on which the assessing authority levied a tax of 10 per cent representing first sales of plastic profile chairs, baby chairs and tables with which the assessee is dealing comes under Entry 4 -A of the Sixth Schedule but not under Entry -187 of the First Schedule. Hence by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and after issuing a show cause notice and calling for the objections of the assessee appellant and considering the same did not agree with the submissions and passed the impugned orders, holding that the said goods fall under Entry 4 -A of the Sixth Schedule but not under Entry No. 187 of the First Schedule. Hence, the present appeal. Reiterating the contentions urged before the lower authorities, it is contended inter -alia by the learned Authorised Representative that the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No. II Division, Vijayawada is not justified in bringing the plastic articles under Entry 4 -A of Sixth Schedule as all kinds of furniture that as he failed to consider that it falls under Entry No. 187 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act besides submitting that the Deputy Commissioner was not correct in following the clarification given in CCT's Ref. No. Al(2)/1142/95, dated 27.8.1995 stating that furniture of all kinds is taxable at 16% which clarification is binding on the subordinate officers.
(2.) THE authorised representative has relied upon the decision reported in : 16 AFSTJ 266 in the case of M/s. Bengal Iron Corporation and Another v. Commercial Tax Officer by Their Lordships of the Apex Court, wherein it was held that even under Section 42 -A A cannot issue instructions or directions which are inconsistent to the Act and Rules and more so it is not binding on the quasi judicial officers while rendering a judgment or order and they are bound by law. It is contended that even the clarification does not speak of plastic moulded chairs would also be taxed as furniture under Entry 4 -A of the Act except saying all kinds of furniture has to be taxed under Entry 4 -A of the Sixth Schedule. So it is his submission that the furniture in question comes under Entry 187 of the First Schedule as the words used in the sub -entry articles of plastic are wide enough to cover the same. The learned authorised representative has also relied upon the decision reported in, 24 APSTJ 129 in the case of Premier Marketing Agencies, Guntur v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein this Tribunal while considering the question as to whether Syntex Water Tanks are "articles of plastic" and are covered by Entry 187 of the First Schedule or not, it was held that they are covered by Entry 187 of the First Schedule and cannot be considered as "Water supply and Sanitary fittings" enumerated in Entry 102 of the First Schedule.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned State Representative relied upon the orders passed by the revisional authority.;


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