K C P LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-33
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 29,1992

K C P LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA-II [LAWS(CE)-2012-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. - (1.)THESE eight tax revision cases filed by the assessees pertaining to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79 both under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the APGST Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act) raise a common question whether the supplies of cement made to the K. C. P. Sugar Factory at Vuyyur (A. P. State) and K. C. P. Engineering Works, Madras, are "sales". The disputed turnovers are as follows :
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Assessment year Disputed turnover ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1975-76 (APGST) Rs. 3,89,422 2 1976-77 (APGST) Rs. 4,39,260 3 1977-78 (APGST) Rs. 7,15,219 4 1978-79 (APGST) Rs. 3,81,491 5 1975-76 (CST) Rs. 1,14,236 6 1976-77 (CST) Rs. 1,65,685 7 1977-78 (CST) Rs. 1,09,562 8 1978-79 (CST) Rs. 9,068 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

(2.)THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a division of the K. C. P. Limited, which is a public limited company having its registered office at Madras. The said company has at least three divisions or units, i. e. , (i) K. C. P. Engineering Works, Madras, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of machine tools; (ii) K. C. P. Sugar Factory, Vuyyur, engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar; and (iii) Ramakrishna Cements, Macheria (petitioner), carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cement. Each one of them is separately registered as a dealer under the respective Sales Tax Acts. The petitioner, namely, the K. C. P. Limited (Ramakrishna Cements), Macheria, is a registered dealer within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla, Guntur district. The petitioner is registered under the APGST and CST Acts. The petitioner after obtaining the permits from the Cement Controller, transferred certain quantities of cement during the relevant years to the K. C. P. Sugar Factory, Vuyyur and K. C. P. Engineering Works, Madras, for the purpose of consumption by transferee units. No invoices were issued in respect of these supplies. However, the accounts disclosed that the cost of cement despatched was debited to the accounts of the transferee-concerns and credited to the account of the petitioner. It is stated by the appellate authority (the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes) that the amount credited to the petitioner's account included the sales tax chargeable on the value of the cement as well. However, it is to be mentioned that there is a controversy on the question whether in fact sales tax was also taken into account.
The Commercial Tax Officer made these assessments or reassessments treating the transactions as "sales" in respect of the supplies made to the K. C. P. Sugar Factory, Vuyyur. The value of the cement reflected in the accounts of the petitioner was subjected to sales tax under the APGST Act. In regard to the cement supplied to the K. C. P. Engineering Works, Madras, tax was levied under the CST Act at 10 per cent. The first appellate authority confirmed these assessments. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred second appeal to the Tribunal. As the Tribunal dismissed the appeals confirming the orders of the lower authorities, the present tax revision cases are before us.

(3.)THE Tribunal took the view that merely by virtue of the juristic personality of a corporate body, the petitioner cannot claim immunity from taxation having regard to the clear provisions of the taxation statute. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "dealer" under the CST Act, and the APGST Act and the relevant provisions dealing with the registration of dealers. The Tribunal concluded that there was transfer of property in goods for consideration having regard to the entries in the accounts and that in view of the diverse manufacturing activities of the three units, the transaction was not merely in the nature of transfer of goods from one business place to another. The Tribunal observed that the assessee itself had treated the transaction as sale by making appropriate entries in the account books. The Tribunal further observed that the fact that the registered office at Madras submitted a single return in respect of all the units under the Income-tax Act, is a totally irrelevant consideration for deciding the sales tax liability of the petitioner. It is the correctness of these conclusions of the Tribunal that are in question in these tax revision cases.
;


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