HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad. Three short points arise for adjudication in this appeal. They are these.

(2.) M /s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad (for short, 'the appellant') are dealers in petroleum products. The appellant was assessed to tax on a Net Turnover of Rs. 11,90,68,35,130/ - for the assessment year 1994 -95. The said Net Turnover was subjected to different rates of taxes by the Commercial Tax Officer, Market Street Circle, Secunderabad (for short, 'the assessing authority') by order dated 31.03.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad (for short, 'the first appellate authority') who by order dated 20.03.1999 allowed the appeal in part, remanded in part and dismissed in part. In effect the first appellate authority confirmed the levy on turnover relating to Canteen sales, turnover relating to purchase of Water under Section 6A and turnover relating to sales of Specialty Oil. Aggrieved again, the appellant prefers this second appeal giving rise to questions formulated at the outset for adjudication.

(3.) POINT (a): It is the case of the appellant that it engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of petroleum products through out the State having refinery at Visakhapatnam. Pursuant to provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 the appellant provided canteen facilities to the employees of the appellant through canteen run by M/s. Gambhir Catering Services (Rc. No. VST -4/2/2845 and M/s. Industrial Catering Services (Rc. No. KDA/10/2/1667). The assessing authority denied the locus standi of the caterers and estimated the sales of food and drinks at Rs. 1 Crore and fixed the liability contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act. The Counsel for the appellant contends that liability under Section 5C of the Act lies on the caterers but not on the appellant. He places reliance on the following case law in this regard and urges to allow the appeal.