SRINIVASA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, Chairman -
(1.) IN this batch of appeals common questions of facts and law arise. Hence, they are heard together and are being disposed by a common order. The particulars of the appeals are as stated hereunder:
(Note : T.A. Nos. as noted above)
Brief facts for disposal of this batch of appeals are stated hereunder. The assessees are dealers in fish feed and prawn -feed. We are not concerned in this batch of appeals with the business done by some of the appellant assessees in some other fields. In this batch of appeals, we are concerned only with the business done by the appellants in fish feed and prawn feed. Prior to 1.8.1996, there was no separate entry in the First Schedule to the APGST Act regarding fish feed and prawn feed. Entry 80 dealt with poultry feed and cattle feed. From 1.8.1996, Entry 80B debar with the commodities fish feed and prawn feed and feed for livestock others than cattle. The assessments covered by the batch of appeals relate to the period -prior to 1.8.1996. The assessees claimed that fish feed and prawn feed fall within the Entry 80, as fish feed and prawn feed are similar to the poultry feed covered by Entry 80 of First Schedule to the APGST Act. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Revenue that fish feed and prawn feed do not fall within the Entry 80 relating to poultry feed and cattle feed and therefore the turnover on fish and prawn feed is to be treated as turnover on unclassified goods to be taxed accordingly. Some of the appeals relate to provisional assessment orders. The remaining appeals relate to final assessment orders.
(2.) THE common point for consideration in all these appeals is whether the turnover on fish feed and prawn feed are to be taxed under Entry 80 of First Schedule to the APGST Act? It is the contention of assessees that fish feed and prawn feed sold by the appellants can be consumed as poultry feed also and the ingredients for manufacture of poultry feed, fish feed and prawn feed are almost identical and similar and there is no prohibition of feeding their fish feed and prawn feed to poultry also. According to them, what all feed meant other than for human beings is to be treated as cattle feed and poultry feed covered by Entry 80. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Revenue that prawn feed and fish feed are not covered by Entry 80. Fish and prawn live in water, their digestive systems are different from the digestive system of the cattle and poultry, their body is very slender and it is highly dissimilar to the bodies of cattle and birds. It is also the contention of the Revenue that the cellular food used for poultry is not suitable for prawn and fish and the ingredients of poultry food and fish food are dissimilar and therefore they cannot be treated alike for taxable purposes.
(3.) AT the time of hearing of these appeals, a number of decisions are cited before us. Among various decisions cited before us, we consider the decision of A.P. High Court in Hindustan Agencies vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Division -1 Hyderabad reported in, (1977) 40 STC 384 is more relevant and apt and applicable to the facts of the present appeals. We will, at a later stage, narrate the facts and principles of law of that decision. We will deal hereunder with other decisions.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.