Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether units engaged in the production of packaged drinking water were entitled to sales tax exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated 20.05.1996.
Analysis: The incentive scheme under G.O. Ms. No. 108 was intended to grant benefits to eligible new industrial units, including sales tax relief. The expression "manufacture" was not defined in the G.O. The Court noted that the sales tax schedule under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 treated ordinary water separately from packaged drinking water/mineral water, placing them in different schedules and subjecting them to different tax treatment. In that context, the respondents could not deny the concession merely on the basis that packaged drinking water fell in the taxable schedule. The Court also held that the Kerala decision relied on by the respondents was inapplicable because the notification there contained an express definition of "manufacture", which was absent here.
Conclusion: The petitioner-units were entitled to sales tax exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 108, and the denial of that benefit was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the packaged drinking water units retained the sales tax incentive granted under the industrial policy.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an incentive notification does not define "manufacture", a tax exemption cannot be denied merely on a narrow characterization of the product, especially when the taxing statute itself distinguishes the commodity from others in separate schedules and treats it differently for tax purposes.