1995 (10) TMI 207 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court allows appeal challenging tax orders on 'cem powder' classification under Sales Tax Act

Venkateswara Agencies Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (and another case)

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed two appeals challenging orders by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax ... - Issues:1. Legality of orders passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.2. Classification of 'cem powder' under general goods or single point goods under entry 45 of the First Schedule to the Act.3. Interpretation of chemical composition and nature of 'cem powder' in relation to distemper and cement-based water paint.4. Adequacy of findings and reasoning by the Commissioner in revising the assessment order.5. Consideration of trade usage and commercial parlance in determining the taxability of 'cem powder' as paints/colours.Analysis:The judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh pertained to two appeals challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The primary issue revolved around the classification of 'cem powder' and its taxability under entry 45 of the Act. The appellate authority and the revisional authority were tasked with determining whether 'cem powder' falls under general goods or single point goods under entry 45. The appellants claimed exemption based on the classification of 'cem powder' as dry distemper or cement-based water paint falling under entry 45, which covers paints, colours, varnishes, etc.The appellate authority remanded the case to the assessing authority to ascertain whether 'cem powder' is a kind of pigment powder, despite the absence of the term 'pigment powder' in entry 45. The High Court found fault with the appellate authority's decision to order an inquiry into this matter, deeming it an illegality. However, the question of whether 'cem powder' qualifies as dry distemper or cement-based water paint remained unresolved. The Commissioner's findings were deemed unsatisfactory as they lacked adequate reasoning and material to support the conclusion that 'cem powder' differed significantly from distemper.The High Court highlighted the Commissioner's failure to consider trade usage or commercial parlance in determining the taxability of 'cem powder' as paints/colours. The Commissioner's order was set aside due to deficiencies in reasoning and failure to address crucial aspects of the classification of 'cem powder.' The case was remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh disposal after granting the appellants an opportunity to be heard. The judgment allowed the appeals, emphasizing the need for a more thorough analysis and consideration of relevant factors in determining the taxability of 'cem powder.'