PANDURANGA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-1998-2-12
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 06,1998

Panduranga Traders Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Ramakrishna, Chairman - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by M/s. Panduranga Traders, Nizamabad, against the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, dated 17 -8 -1996 in Appeal No. 362/96 -97 filed against the assessment orders of the Commercial Tax Officer -I, Nizamabad, in G.I. No. 11661/93 -94, dated 14.9.1995. The dispute is in respect of inclusion of Rs. 78,59,050 -00, in the gross turnover affecting the rate of additional tax. The appellant is a dealer in agricultural produce. It purchased and sold agricultural produce on own account and also on behalf of the principals. The amount of Rs. 78,59,050/ - is said to relate to sale of maize on behalf of principals. The contention of the appellant is that maize being liable to tax at the point of purchase the sale of maize does not constitute turnover and that if that amount is deducted the rate of additional tax would be less than what was levied because the gross turnover would be in a lower slab under Section 5 -A of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The appeal filed against the assessment order was dismissed on the ground that having regard to the expressions "turnover in all goods" and "Whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax" occurring in section 2(i)(r), the turnover of maize comprising of sale of maize in selling agency would constitute turnover. Hence this appeal.
(2.) THE point for consideration is, whether the disputed amount relating to selling agency of maize is not turnover and therefore the appellant is liable to lower rate additional tax? Maize is a declared commodity listed at item 18 of the Third Schedule to the A.P.G.S.T. Act. It is liable to tax at the point of first purchase in the State. Section 6 is charging section in respect of declared goods. Under that section the sales or purchases of declared goods by a dealer shall be liable to tax at the rate and only at the point of sale or purchase specified against each in the Third Schedule. As already stated, maize is liable to tax at the point of purchase. Rule 5 of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules reads as follows: - - (1) (Save as provided in sub -rules) (2) to (8) the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the total amount received by the dealer as the consideration for the sale of the goods. (2) In the case of the under -mentioned goods, the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the total amount payable by the dealer as the consideration for the purchase of the goods. (XXXI) Maize Under rule 5, the turnover of a dealer in respect of maize shall be the total amount payable by the dealer as consideration for the purchase. Therefore, the consideration for the sale of maize is not a turnover. In fact in respect of selling agency of turmeric which is also liable to tax at the point of purchase the amount was deleted in the assessment from the gross turnover and net turnover treating it as 'no turnover'. Similarly sale consideration of maize liable to tax at the point of purchase is no turnover. It shall be deducted for the purpose of arriving at the gross and net turnovers. The assessment order does not contain the actual amount relating to selling agency of maize. A consolidated amount was given under the head "Selling Agency turnover" for Onions and Maize. The assessing authority may arrive at the sale consideration of maize and deduct it from the gross and net turnovers. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The assessing authority is directed to delete the sale consideration of maize in selling agency transaction from the gross and net turnovers and determine the gross turnover slab and apply the appropriate rate of additional tax/turnover tax on the balance turnover under each item of the net turnover. Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by him, and pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of February, 1998. ;


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