THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK T.R.C.No.63 of 2003 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

This Tax Revision Case is filed by the Revenue under Section 22(1)

of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), being dissatisfied with the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in Tax Appeal, vide T.A.No.504 of

2000 dt.11.09.2002.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this revision case is whether the respondent – assessee is entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-State sales of steel tubes made against Form-D declaration issued by the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Karnataka.

3. The respondent – assessee is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramgopalpet Circle, and is engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes. For the assessment year 1993-94 under the Act, the respondent – assessee had effected sales of steel tubes to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, for using the said goods in its various projects.

4. The said Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, in respect of the purchases of steel tubes from the respondent – assessee, had claimed for being charged with concessional rate of tax of 4% subject to furnishing of Form-D declaration. On the respondent – assessee effecting sales of steel tubes to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, being a purchaser has issued Form-D declaration to the respondent – assessee in order to claim concessional rate of tax on its sales.

5. By the order of assessment, the assessing authority allowed the benefit of concessional rate of tax of 4% in respect of sales made by the respondent – assessee to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Karnataka, to a tune of turnover of Rs.19,83,368/-. However, revisional authority in exercise of revisional powers conferred on him under Section 20(2) of the Act had disallowed the benefit of concessional rate of tax on such sales claiming that the order of assessment granting/assessing the turnover at concessional rate of tax to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

6. The revisional authority by his order had held that the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, cannot be considered as Government, for it to be eligible to obtain and issue Form-D declaration to the respondent – assessee in order to claim concessional rate of tax; and that Zilla Parishad is an autonomous body and managed by group of persons elected by the people and it functions under the overall control of the State Government without being part of the Government.

7. The respondent – assessee feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of revision had filed an appeal under Section 21 of the Act before the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal by taking note of the fact that the term ‘Government’ is not defined either under the APGST Act or CST Act and by referring to Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh v/ s. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 856 (SC) had held that Zilla Parishad also comes under Government. The Tribunal further noted that in the Form-D declaration issued to the respondent – assessee, it has been mentioned as “to be used when making purchases by Government and name of the State is Karnataka” and the said form is signed by the Executive Engineer, Z.P.E. Division, Chikodi, which is a division of Zilla Parishad Engineering Department, Government of Karnataka, Bidar, Karnataka State, and held that the purchases are by the Government only and as such, the respondent – assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax on such goods.

9. The Tribunal, while arriving at the above conclusion, had also made reference to the decision rendered by it in the case of M/ s. Balmer Lawrie and Company v/ s. State of Andhra Pradesh, 21 APSTJ 61 wherein it is held that the responsibility lies on the dealer, who h