SURYAVANSHI SPINNING MILLS LTD. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant M/s. Suryavanshi Spinning Mills Ltd., S.P. Road, Secunderabad filed this appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, dated 29.10.2007 in R.C. No. E3/R/33/2005 -06 in respect of the assessment year 2001 -02 (APGST). The revisional authority's order has been questioned before us on three issues. Firstly, the appellants' seeks relief on levy of purchase tax on PSF (Polyster staple fibre) amounting to Rs. 5,35,52,138/ -. The appellants' counsel has stated that the appellant company purchased PSF from Reliance Industries Sales Office, Hyderabad and these are tax paid purchases. The levy of tax on the appellants' is not justified and is a clear violation of clause (i) of sub -section (4) of Section 5, wherein it is provided that in respect of the same transaction, the buyer or the seller but not both, shall be taxed. In support of their contention that the purchases made by them were tax paid, they have produced before us a Certificate from M/s. Reliance Industries.

(2.) THE second issue relates to levy of tax on job work charge receipts worth Rs. 76,29,718/ -. These receipts have been taken as value of works contract executed by the appellant and have been taxed by the revisional authority. It is the contention of the appellant that the companies which employed them for job work such as dyeing and printing, have supplied the material required for such job work, such as yarn, buttons, cups, collars etc., and that the entire amount collected by the appellant company in respect of the above job work pertains only to charges of power, labour and machine charges. They have presented before us Certificates of Letters received from the company employing them for such job work i.e., M/s. Suryavanshi Textiles Limited and Balaji Garments as well as Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd.

(3.) THE appellant has further submitted that in revision, burden of proof lies on the revisional authority. The revisional authority has not conducted any enquiry and did not specifically name or ask the appellant company to produce any particular document for verification. Therefore, his action is totally inconsistent with the provisions of the Sec. 20 of the APGST, 1957.