SUPER CASETTEE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Limited, Babu Khan Estate, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad assailing the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad passed in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes's Ref. No. L -III(1)/493/2005, dated 4 -10 -2006 in making the reassessment in the re -revision by increasing the tax from 12 per cent to 16 per cent on the audio cassettes. Originally, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nampally Circle, Hyderabad made an assessment of the audio cassettes on the following turnovers:

(2.) THEREUPON , in exercise of the power under Section 20(2), the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, Hyderabad negatived the submission by order dated 30 -11 -2002 and issued Revisional show cause notice to the appellant. The appellant contended that the audio cassettes work on electronic principles falls under electronic goods in the list of electronic goods published by Department of Electronic Commission mentioned in item 16. The appellant further submitted that scientifically audio cassettes are electro magnetic tapes on which audio signals recorded by electro magnetic function and also replayed by electro magnetic function through medium of tape recorder. The concessional rate of tax has been claimed by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner that the audio cassettes are electronic goods, but the Revisional Authority observed the cassettes are goods that are independently exist on their own and media for sound transmission. The audio cassettes are manufactured independently and marketed by dealers for the purpose of use for recording. When the recorded cassettes put in a tape recorder, sound is produced in the form a song, music or speech etc., The cassettes independently on their own do not contain any electronic principle and do not work on electronic principle. While observing so, on the first sales of audio cassettes, tax was levied at 12 per cent. The said Revisional order was again revised by order dated 4 -10 -2006 by the Additional Commissioner (Legal) by issuing a show cause notice dated 7 -7 -2005 and served on the assessee on 19 -7 -2005. The assessee objected for revising the Revisional order submitting that second revision is not permissible and is contrary to Section 20(2 -A) of the APGST Act and to the principle laid down by the High Court in M/s. Indo National Limited case reported in (2004) 136 STC 586. But however, the Revisional Authority confirmed the proposed revision and taxed at 16 per cent instead of 12 per cent.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the orders passed by Additional Commissioner in re -revising the revision is liable to be set aside on the following grounds: