Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, BASI REDDI, MOHD.MIRZA
Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., by the Deputy Commr.of Commercial Tax, Anantapur - Respondent
Decided On : 07-29-65
SALES TAX - Rule 5 (1) (k) and Rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules - Amendment - Withdrawal of rebate in respect of refined oil - Validity - Article 14 of the Constitution - Whether the impugned Act is repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution - Whether the transactions in question constituted intra-state sales and not inter-state sales - Whether the notification issued by the Board of Revenue and published in the Andhra Gazette dated 7-1-1951, would avail the petitioner notwithstanding the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Thungabhadra Industries Limited, which has a factory at Kurnool, purchases groundnut and groundnut Kernel and manufactures amongst other things groundnut oil, refined oil and hydrogenated oil for sale within the State and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the transactions with which we are concerned, the petitioner imported groundnut kernel from dealers outside the State in pursuance of a contract of sale entered into between the parties and thereafter converted the kernel into oil of three types, namely, raw groundnut oil, refined oil and hydrogenated oil.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned Act is not repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution. The transactions in question constituted intra-state sales and not inter-state sales. The notification issued by the Board of Revenue and published in the Andhra Gazette dated 7-1-1951, would not avail the petitioner notwithstanding the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned Act is repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the transactions in question constituted intra-state sales and not inter-state sales? 3. Whether the notification issued by the Board of Revenue and published in the Andhra Gazette dated 7-1-1951, would avail the petitioner notwithstanding the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The impugned Act is not repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution because there is a reasonable classification between raw ground nut oil, refined oil and hydrogenated oil. The rule-making authority might well have thought that while withdrawing the rebate in respect of refined oil, it should not withdraw the rebate to vanaspathi as that would result in the price going up still further and cause hardship to the consuming public. 2. The transactions in question constituted intra-state sales and not inter-state sales because the sales were completed within the State subsequent to the delivery of the goods at the premises of the petitioner and the property in the goods passed only after weighment and various tests which were done at Kurnool. 3. The notification issued by the Board of Revenue and published in the Andhra Gazette dated 7-1-1951, would not avail the petitioner notwithstanding the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 because it was issued by the Board of Revenue and not by the State Government and it applies only to non-resident dealers as are liable to pay the Andhra Sales Tax.
Final Decision: The Tax Revision Cases are allowed to the extent indicated above and the appeals out of which they have arisen, are remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal according to law in the light of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs in all these cases.
( 1 ) THESE Tax Revision Cases were referred to a Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of two of us (Basi Reddy and Mohamed Mirza, JJ.) because it was contended with some plausibility that the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court composed of Chandra Reddy, C. J. and Krishna Rao, J. in Berar Oil Industries v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1959) 10 STC 199 (AP), negativing the challenge based upon Article 14 of the Constitution as to the validity of a Government notification dated 9/11/1951, --amending Rule 5 (1) (k) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, by the addition of the words "other than refined groundnut oil" and adding Sub-rule (5) to Rule 18 of the said Rules, the effect of which was the withdrawal of the benefit of the deduction of the purchase price of groundnut or kernel which went into the manufacture of refined oil, from the sale turnover of such oil, required reconsideration, in the light of certain observations of the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer (1960) 11 STC 827; (AIR 1961 SC 412 ). Before dealing with this point and some other points which were urged before us, we shall briefly set out the material facts, shorn of figures, which we consider unnecessary in view of the ultimate order we propose to male in these cases.
( 2 ) T. R. C. 1/62 is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 472 of 1960; T. R. C. 2/1962 is against T. A. 299 ot 1960; T. R. C. No. 3/1962 is against T. A. 471 of 1960 and T, R. C. 4/1962 is against T. A. 470 of 1960, and they relate respectively to assessments for the years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1954-55 and 1953-54. The petitioner in all these eases is Thungabhadra Industries Limited, which has factory at Kurnool, which purchases groundnut and groundnut Kernel and manufactures amongst other things groundnut oil, refined oil and hydrogenated oil for sale within the State and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the transactions with which we are concerned, the petitioner imported groundnut kernel from dealers outside the State in pursuance of a contract of sale entered into between the parties and thereafter converted the kernel into oil of three types, namely, raw groundnut oil, refined oil and hydrogenated oil. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner raised the following contentions: (1) From the sale turnover of refined oil, the petitioner was entitled to deduct under Rule 18 read with Rule 5 (1) (k) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the purchase price of the groundnut kernel which went into the manufacture of the refined oil. (2) The transactions relating to the purchase of groundnut kernel represent purchases in the course of inter-state trade and as such beyond the taxing power of the State, as enjoined by Article 286 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) AS regards the first contention, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner was not entitled to any rebate, because the relevant Rule excludes rebate on refined oil. The Rule that the Tribunal had in mind was Sub-rule (5) which was added to Rule 18 of the Rules by a Notification dated 9/11/1951, whereby Sub-rules (1) to (4) which entitled a registered manufacturer of groundnut oil to deduct the value of the groundnut and/or kernel purchased and converted into oil and cake from his gross turnover, provided that the amount for which the, oil was sold was included in the turnover, were expressly made inapplicable to refined groundnut oil.
( 4 ) AS regards the second contention, the Tribunal was of the view that the transactions were not sales in the course of inter-state trade inasmuch as there was no concluded sale before the goods were transported from an outside State into this State. In other words, the Tribunal was of the opinion that there should be in the first instance a sale of goods, and then the transportation of the goods from one
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.