THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

T.R.C.Nos.60, 68 and 71 of 2003

COMMON ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

Since all these Tax Revision Cases raise common question of law

and the assessee in all these matters is one and the same, these Revision

Cases are being disposed of by this common order.

2. T.R.C.No.60 of 2003 is filed by the Revenue under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), being aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Tax Appeal, vide T.A.No.1398 of 2001 dt.18.10.2002. The Assessment Year involved is

1991-92.

3. T.R.C.No.68 of 2003 is filed by the Revenue under Section 22(1) of the Act being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in Tax Appeal, vide T.A.No.1397 of 2001 dt.18.10.2002. The Assessment Year involved is

1990-91.

4. T.R.C.No.71 of 2003 is filed by the Revenue under Section 22(1) of the Act being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in Tax Appeal, vide T.A.No.1399 of 2001 dt.18.10.2002. The Assessment Year involved is

1992-93.

5. Heard learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing on behalf of the petitioner – Revenue in all these revisions and perused the record. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent – assessee.

6. The short point that arises for consideration in these revision cases is as to (i) whether the ‘rough casting’ made by the respondent - assessee out of iron scrap are one and the same; and (ii) whether the respondent – assessee is entitled to claim exemption in respect of its tax suffered purchases of iron scrap?

7. The respondent – assessee during the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, had claimed that the turn over relating to sale of rough casting is exempt from tax under the Act, as these castings are made out of tax suffered raw material i.e. iron scrap. The said claim of the respondent – assessee however was not accepted and the Assessing Authority who treated the rough castings are different commodity from iron scrap and levied tax @ 4%.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of assessment levying tax on rough castings sold, the respondent – assessee preferred appeals under Section 19 of the Act to the Appellate Authority; and that the Appellate Authority having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vasantham Foundry v/ s. Union of India, (1995) 21 APSTJ 107, had held that the iron scrap and rough iron castings are one and the same commodities and as such, the respondent – assessee is entitled for exemption.

9. The Joint Commissioner found the said orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner allowing the appeals of the respondent – assessee to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue, revised the said orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and subjected the disputed turnover to tax at the rate applicable to unclassified goods by stating that alloy steel castings are different from sale of steel castings mentioned in sub-entry (viii) of Entry 2 of III Schedule to the Act and therefore, are to be treated as unclassified goods.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Joint Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Act, the respondent – assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal.

11. The Tribunal, by considering the case of the respondent – assessee as well as the stand of the revenue, had held that the respondent – assessee had established that the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 20(2) of the Act on the appeals are barred by limitation.

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal in allowing the appeals, the revenue has filed these revision cases.

13. On behalf of the petitioner – revenue, it is contended that the iron scrap from and out of which, the respondent – assessee manufactures rough iron castings is not entitled to claim benefit of set off of purchase tax paid by it on purchase