G VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AND BRORS Vs. STATE O ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-39
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 30,1992

G VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AND BRORS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KALA TRADING COMPANY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(ST)-2009-1-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. - (1.)THIS T. R. C. is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 24, 1985, in Tribunal Appeal No. 246/1980 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner is the assessee. For the assessment year 1974-75, in the assessment proceedings, the petitioner claimed exemption of turnover relating to tamarind seed dhal in a sum of Rs. 1,66,268. The petitioner contended that the tamarind had already suffered tax at the purchase point. He also contended that the tamarind seed dhal is obtained by roasting the same. This is for the purpose of preserving from decay and making it marketable. The Commercial Tax Officer took the view that tamarind seed and tamarind seed dhal are two different commodities and accordingly levied tax on the said turnover at the rate of 4 per cent under section 5 (1) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner carried the matter before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. Relying upon the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in a similar case, the Assistant Commissioner held that they are not two different commodities and set aside the levy of tax. In exercise of the power under section 20 of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, the Deputy Commissioner revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Commercial Tax Officer levying the tax. The petitioner appealed against the said order to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision dated July 18, 1985, in T. A. No. 384/81, dismissed the appeal.
(2.)MR . Raji Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that tamarind seeds and tamarind seed dhal or kernel are one and the same commodities. For converting tamarind seeds into tamarind dhal, no manufacturing process is involved. It is only roasted and dehusked and that therefore it is the same commodity. He further submits that tamarind and tamarind seeds have already suffered tax, therefore the tamarind seed dhal cannot again be subjected to tax. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that the tamarind seed and tamarind dhal are entirely different commodities, therefore the fact that tamarind seeds have already suffered tax cannot be a ground to contend that tamarind seed dhal cannot be subjected to tax.
The short question that arises for consideration in this T. R. C. is, whether tamarind seed and tamarind seed dhal are the same commodities ? Here it would be useful to refer to certain judgments of the courts dealing with similar questions. In State of Madras v. R. Saravana Pillai [1956] 7 STC 541, the Madras High Court was considering the scope of proviso to section 2 (i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act which excludes from tax liability under the Act, sale of agricultural and horticultural produce. The question before the court was whether arecanuts after they were peeled and the kernels thereafter sliced, boiled and dried change their character so as to cease to be agricultural or horticultural produce. The Madras High Court held that the arecanuts were only subject to the minimum processing absolutely necessary for their sale and therefore retained their character as horticultural produce within the meaning of the proviso to section 2 (i ). The principle laid down by the Madras High Court is that where any agricultural or horticultural produce is subjected to, the minimum processing before that produce can be marketed, it would still retain its character as agricultural or horticultural produce. In our case, however, the question is different and the judgment cannot be of much assistance to the petitioner.

(3.)IN Motilal Hari Prasad and Bros. v. State of Andhra [1959] 10 STC 20 (AP), the question was whether the groundnut includes kernel and liable to be taxed at the purchase point. Our High Court was considering the meaning of the word "groundnut" in rule 4 (2) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. It was held that the word "groundnut" is of wide amplitude so as to embrace within the compass the kernel also and therefore groundnut kernel is liable to be taxed at the purchase point.
;


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