Decided on July 07,2009

Ecc Trading Limited Appellant


N. Ratna Raju, Member (D) - (1.) THE short point that arises for adjudication in this appeal is this: Whether 'D' Form issued by Andhra University entitles the appellant to get the benefit of exemption against transit sales of Taper' as contemplated by Section 8(1)(a) of the CST Act, '56? Material facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal run as follows:
(2.) M /s. ECC Trading Limited, Minerva Complex, SD Road, Secunderabad (for short, 'the appellants') were dealers and traders in Paper during the assessment year 1995 -96. Under the CST Act, '56 (for short, 'the Act') their assessment for the year 1995 -96 was finalized by the Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar Circle, Secunderabad Division (for short, 'the assessing authority') by proceedings dated 25 -03 -1999. While assessing, the assessing authority noticed that the appellant effected transit sales to M/s. Andhra University on the basis of 'D' form issued by the University which is an autonomous body but not a Government organization. Rejecting the claim of exemption, the assessing authority subjected the turnover of Rs. 32,22,831/ - involved and brought it to tax at 12%. This resulted in a tax levy of Rs. 3,86,740/ -. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad (for short 'the appellate authority') who by proceedings dated 08 -10 -1999 allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant - on the ground that Andhra University in particular and Universities in general are not enlisted under ineligible organizations vide G.O.Ms. No. 882, Revenue, (CT -III) Department, dated 28 -12 -1988 issued under the CST Act, '56. However, the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of revisional power contemplated under the Act set aside the proceedings dated 08 -10 -1999 passed by the appellate authority and restored the assessment order dated 25 -03 -1999 passed by the assessing authority. The said revision is dated 03 -05 -2002. The reason recorded for revision is that Andhra University is an autonomous body which is not a Government Department of either State or Central Government and therefore the appellant is not entitled for exemption against 'D' form issued by the University. Again aggrieved, the appellant preferred second appeal before this Tribunal. Heard.
(3.) THE learned Advocate interceding for the appellant contended that though the expression 'Government' is not defined under CST Act, Andhra University is definitely an "agency or instrumentality" of the Government under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance in the following case law in support of his contention. 1) The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., vs. The Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association and Another : (2002) AIR 609. 2) Sheela Barse vs. The Secretary, Children Aid Society and Others : (1987) AIR 656; and 3) Ajay Hasia etc., vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravadi and Others etc., : (1981) AIR 487. Secondly, he contended that G.O. Ms. No. 882, dated 28 -12 -1988 enlisted certain public sector organizations which are not eligible to use Form 'D' and since Universities are not found in the list, they are eligible to use Form 'D' issued by Andhra University as instrumentality of Government. Thirdly, he submitted that even Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O.Ms. No. 491, dated 16 -07 -2001 referred to Government Departments and Undertakings where it has also referred to all Universities. Hence, it is urged that the appeal be allowed. On the other hand, the learned State representative stated that only Public Sector Undertakings, Organizations are entitled to use 'D' Form excluding those Central Sector Undertakings and Organizations/State Industries and Organizations enumerated in G.O.Ms. No. 882, dated 28 -12 -1988. Andhra University is not a Public Sector Undertaking or Organization and hence no exemption benefit accrues against 'D' Form issued by Andhra University. He also submitted that the case law pressed into service is irrelevant and the relevant case law should be under the provisions of the CST Act only. He accordingly urged that the appeal be dismissed.;

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