MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) ALL these six Tax Revision Cases arise out of the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 18-10-1993. As the petitioner-company is same and the common questions of law to be adjudicated are also same in all these revisions, they arc heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) TRC No. 23 of 1994 is filed against TA No. 192 of 1992, TRC No. 24 of 1994 is filed against TA No. 194 of 1992, TRC No. 25 of 1994 is filed against TA No. 325 of 1992. , TRC No. 26 of 1994 is filed against TA No. 322 of 1992, TRC No. 27 of 1994 is filed against TA No. 191 of 1992 and TRC No. 30 of 1994 is filed against TA No. 321 of 1992.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-Company has raised the following common questions of law for a decision by this Court, viz. , (1) Whether coal and coat-ash (cinder) arc to be treated as the same commodity or as different commodities for the purpose of taxation under the APGST Act, 1957? (2) Whether coal-ash is a product of the petitioner s industrial unit and whether the sale of coal-ash by the petitioner is eligible for exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 606, dated 9-4-1981? (3) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law stating that the judgment of the Supreme Court in India Carbon Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes. Gowhati, (1971) 28-STC-603 is not applicable to the facts of the present case? (4) Whether coal-ash is taxable under entry (1) of the Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 or under the Seventh Schedule?facts in brief arc as under: The petitioner-Company, M/s. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Limited is engaged in manufacturing paper, paper boards etc. It had purchased eucalyptus wood and casurina wood from various unregistered dealers during the relevant assessment years and used the same for manufacturing paper, paper boards, etc. It had also sold coal-ash (cinder) which was obtained after the coal was burnt when used as fuel for the purpose of manufacturing the paper board etc.

( 4 ) THE assessing authority during the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1986-87 granted exemption on the turnovers relating to sale of coal-ash on the ground that coal and coal-ash are one and the same commodity and the sale of coal-ash by the petitioner-Company is only a second sale. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal, however, revised the orders of the assessing authority and withdrew the exemption granted by the assessing authority by holding that coal-ash is commercially a different commodity from that of coal and as such the sale of coal-ash amounts to first sale in the hands of the petitioner-Company and is liable to be taxed.

( 5 ) AS against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Warangal, the petitioner-Company has preferred TA Nos. 191, 195, 193, 192 and 194 of 1992 respectively, inter-alia, contending that coal and coal-ash are one and the same commodity and arc not two different commodities. It was further contended that the petitioner-Company had purchased coal from registered dealers and sold the coal-ash obtained from such coal which was burnt as fuel and as such, the sale of coal-ash amounts to second sale in its hands eligible for tax exemption. In TA Nos. 191, 195 and 193 of 1992 which relate to the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively, the petitioner-Company has further contended that the sale of coal-ash is eligible for exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 606, Revenue, dated 9-4-1981. On an elaborate consideration of the matter, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, by its order dated 18-10-1993 held as under: (1) Coal and coal-ash arc two different commodities and as such, the contention that sale of coal-ash is not liable to be taxed being second sale is rejected. (2) Coal-ash cannot be considered as a product of the petitioner s industrial unit in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 606, Revenue, dated 9-4-1981 and therefore, the petitioner-Company is not entitled for tax ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document