Tax Revision Case No. 52 of 2002. Case: The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Tax Revision Case No. 52 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Anil Kumar, Special Govt. Pleader and For Respondents: S. Dwarakanath, Adv. |
| Judges | G. Chandraiah and Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 2(g); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Sections 12(3), 39B(3) |
| Judgement Date | June 30, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
G. Chandraiah, J.
-
This tax revision case at the instance of Revenue, arises from the order dated 06.06.2000 in Tribunal Appeal No. 583 of 1995 of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The substantial questions of law raised are as under:
1) Whether disputed transaction is a sale covered by A.P.G.S.T. Act or C.S.T. Act?
2) Whether the Hon'ble S.T.A.T., A.P., Hyderabad is justified in setting aside the orders of the A.D.C. (CT) Secunderabad Division?
-
The matter relates to the Assessment Year 1993-94. The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in P.S.C. pipes. The Tribunal recorded in its order that the assessee had entered into an agreement dated 09.06.1991, wherein the assessee had undertaken to supply, erect and commission stressed concrete pipes for Prawn Aquaculture Project at Nellore. Pursuant to the agreement, the assessee transported pipes and other goods from its Bangalore Depot to Andhra Pradesh State and thereafter completed the work. The assessee claimed the said transaction to be the one falling under the CST Act, as, pursuant to the agreement, the goods have moved from the State of Karnataka to the State of Andhra Pradesh. On the other hand, the Commercial Tax Officer treated the transaction as branch transfer intra-State Sale and thus while recording a finding that goods from Bangalore in Karnataka State to Nellore in Andhra Pradesh State. The assessee filed an appeal. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on analysis of the record, allowed the appeal holding that the transaction would fall under the CST Act, and considering the fact that at relevant point of time there being no tax liability on the Works Contract, set aside the assessment order and demand. In the above set of facts, the questions of law referred to in paragraph 1 above, are raised before this Court.
-
Learned Special Government Pleader, Mr. Anil Kumar, submits that the Tribunal, while recording the findings, had taken into consideration of the evidence which has been produced by the dealer without following the procedure and as such the findings recorded by the Tribunal are questionable and should not be relied on. He further attempts to place on record a set of documents before this Court to buttress his argument that the order of assessment is improper and it is the Tribunal which has erred in appreciating various...
To continue reading
Request your trial