Decided on January 31,1998



M.Ramakrishna, Chairman - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by M/s. Raipur Alloys & Steels Limited, Pan Bazar, Secunderabad against the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad, dated 17.11.1993 in Appeal No. B/108/93 -94 filed against the assessment orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramgopalpet Circle, Secunderabad in GI No. 20417/91 -92, dated 17.6.1993 the disputed turnover is Rs. 1,13,745 -00. The disputed turnover related to purchase of cast iron scrap. It is liable to tax at the point of purchase by electric are furnaces unit or induction furnace unit or by the last dealer who buys in the State. There was no denial of the fact that the appellant is liable to tax on the turnover as the last buyer in the State. The only dispute is that inspite of liability on the point of purchase the authorities at Visakhapatnam collected tax at the point of sale by the sellers like Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The authorised representative filed a copy of the certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle, Visakhapatnam to the effect that VSP Project, Visakhapatnam has sold CI Scrap, CI Skull etc., to the appellant and paid taxes.
(2.) AT the time of the hearing the authorised representative cited the decision of this Tribunal in, (1998) 26 APSTJ 6 in Mahalaxmi Foundries Engineering, Hyderabad & Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which an identical question viz., the sellers collected tax from the appellants on the raw material falling under item 2 -A of the Third Schedule when they purchased and if the appellants were subjected to tax again, it amounted to double taxation at the point of sale as well as at the point of purchases on the same item for which the State is neither competent nor can it be ethical and requested for adjustment of such tax collected by the Revenue. This Tribunal has observed and directed as follows: - "It is to be noted that since the raw material falling under item 2 was taxable at the point of first sale upto 15.2.1989, the practice continued either on account of ignorance of the change of law or on account of insistence of the assessing authority by taking a different view against the appellants, while at the same time it was possible that some sellers of the appellants got exemption on the ground that the item was taxable at the point of purchase. Since we clarified earlier while answering question No. 3 that purchase of iron scrap, cast -iron scrap, runner -scrap, skull scrap are exigible to tax in the hands of purchasers with effect from 15.2.1989 and as we are upholding the levy of such tax in such cases, we also feel that it is but just and proper that the appellants should be given benefit by adjusting the tax already collected by the Revenue in the hands of their sellers without concerning themselves about the inters adjustments between the parties. This adjustment shall be confined to cases where it is proved that the tax has already been collected by the Revenue from such seller and refund is not claimed by seller by way of appeal or otherwise". The above observation equally holds good in this appeal. Hence we direct adjustment of the tax collected from the sellers towards tax payable by the appellant provided such tax has not been refunded to the seller in an appeal or otherwise. In the result, the appeal is allowed with those directions. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, pronounced in the Open Court on this the 31st day of January, 1998. ;

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