Exemption notification construed in ordinary commercial parlance; poultry feed not treated as cereals and pulses, with undecided issues remanded.

An exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 2566, Revenue, issued under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, had to be construed in ordinary commercial parlance and only within the conditions stated in the notification. Poultry feed was treated as a distinct commodity from cereals and pulses, so the dealer's certificate and financing references could not enlarge the scope of the exemption; the claim failed on that issue. The Tribunal had also left undecided contentions concerning leather goods and turnover tax on certain second sales, and those matters were remanded for fresh consideration after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether poultry feed manufactured and sold by the dealer fell within the exempted category of "processing of cereals and pulses" under G.O. Ms. No. 2566, Revenue, issued under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957; (ii) whether the Tribunal's failure to examine the dealer's other contentions relating to leather goods and turnover tax on certain second sales required remand.

Issue (i): whether poultry feed manufactured and sold by the dealer fell within the exempted category of "processing of cereals and pulses" under G.O. Ms. No. 2566, Revenue, issued under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Exemption under the Government Order depended on satisfaction of the specified conditions in the notification, including coverage by the prescribed certificate and engagement in one of the industrial activities mentioned in the annexure. The expression "processing of cereals and pulses" had to be understood in commercial or ordinary parlance. Poultry feed is a distinct commodity from cereals and pulses, and the certificate or financing reference relied on by the dealer could not control the meaning of the Government Order or expand the exemption.

Conclusion: The claim that poultry feed was covered by the exemption was rejected and the Tribunal's view on this point was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal's failure to examine the dealer's other contentions relating to leather goods and turnover tax on certain second sales required remand.

Analysis: The Tribunal had noticed these contentions but had not dealt with them in the impugned order. Since those issues had not been adjudicated on merits, the proceedings had to be sent back so that the Tribunal could consider them after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of those two contentions.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim in respect of poultry feed failed, but the remaining unexamined issues were sent back for decision by the Tribunal, resulting in a partial allowance of the revision cases.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification issued under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 must be construed according to the ordinary commercial meaning of its terms, and a certificate issued by an administrative body cannot enlarge the scope of the notification; where material contentions are left undecided, remand is warranted.

---