V. V. S. RAO, J.

The two tax revision cases under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the GST Act") read with section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ("the VAT Act") are being disposed of by this common judgment. They are against common order dated March 31, 2010 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in T.A. Nos. 949, 953, 1038 and 1105 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal considered three questions. The questions (a) and (c) related to T.A. Nos. 949 and 953 of 2005 with which these revision cases are not concerned as those appeals related to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 were allowed. Whether the liability fixed under section 5E of the GST Act in respect of the royalty received by the appellant against the right to use the trademark and the patent is sustainable in law ? This formed question (b). On this, the learned Tribunal held that the consideration received by the petitioner from the other companies/concerns for transfer of the right to use its "Nutrine" trademark and "bunny" logo, is the amount realized in respect of the transfer of the right to use the goods and, therefore, it attracts levy of tax. This finding is put in issue in these two revision cases.

Turning to the brief fact of the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner, which is registered on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer II, Chittoor, is a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing of confectionery, i.e., chocolates, toffees, etc. It has a trademark "Nutrine" and a logo "bunny", which they use on the wrappers, pouches, containers, invoices, letterheads and advertising materials. The petitioner entered into four agreements on April 1, 1994 with M/s. BVR Confectionery Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Nutrine Biscuits Ltd. The petitioner also entered into another agreement on June 1, 1997 with M/s. Nutrine Sweets Ltd. Under these five agreements, which contain similar clauses, the petitioner agreed to allow the above companies (hereafter called, transferee/assignee) to use "Nutrine" trademark and "bunny" logo. The agreed royalty is Rs. 500 per ton of production by the assignee and the agreement is terminable by one month notice on either side. The Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) finalized the assessment for the year 1997-98 determining taxable turnover of Rs. 51,86,100, out of which T. Rev. C. No. 253 of 2010 arises. The CTO determined the turnover for 1998-99 at Rs. 10,29,766 out of which T. Rev. C. No. 260 of 2010 arises. The assessment proceedings were challenged before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, which were partly allowed. But the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, by two separate orders dated May 6, 2004, revised the appellate orders under section 20(2) of the General Sales Tax Act, as a result of which the turnover/tax for the assessment year 1997-98 stood at Rs. 51,86,100 and Rs. 2,59,305, out of which T. Rev. C. No. 253 of 2010 arises. The turnover/tax for the assessment year 1998-99 stood at Rs. 10,29,766 and Rs. 61,452 out of which T. Rev. C. No. 260 of 2010 arises. Aggrieved by these orders, tax appeals were filed before the learned Tribunal, which were dismissed holding that the royalty received by the petitioner from the assignees under different agreements is liable to tax as "goods" under entry 197 of Schedule I of the GST Act.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the assignee pays royalty for all multiple services including the use of the trademark and the logo and, therefore, there is no transfer of right to use goods as contemplated under law. He relies on Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (RINL-I) [1990] 77 STC 182 (AP) and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (RINL-II) [2002] 126 STC 114 (SC); [2002] 3 SCC 314, which confirmed the High Court. He nextly submits that when the agreement confers on the assignee more than one us