Purchase tax on common inputs under Andhra Pradesh VAT is proportionate, but declared goods and limitation remain tightly controlled.

Section 4(4) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act was explained as a charging provision permitting purchase tax on taxable goods bought from farmers or unregistered dealers where the inputs are used in exempt outputs, disposed of otherwise than by sale, or sent outside the State otherwise than by sale. The first proviso was treated as a computation mechanism allowing proportionate levy on common inputs only to the extent linked to such outputs. Declared goods remain subject to the CST Act restrictions, so aggregate tax cannot exceed the statutory ceiling. Extended limitation under Section 21(5) requires a proper allegation of wilful evasion, and input tax credit issues under Rule 20 depend on factual examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether purchase tax under Section 4(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be levied on taxable agricultural produce purchased from farmers or unregistered dealers when the manufactured or processed goods were sold, exempted, or sent outside the State otherwise than by way of sale; (ii) Whether the first proviso to Section 4(4) permitted proportionate levy on a common input when one of the outputs was exempt or otherwise disposed of; (iii) Whether the levy could be sustained in relation to declared goods having regard to Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India and Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; and (iv) Whether limitation under Sections 21(3) and 21(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the restriction of input tax credit under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules were correctly applied.

Issue (i): Whether purchase tax under Section 4(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be levied on taxable agricultural produce purchased from farmers or unregistered dealers when the manufactured or processed goods were sold, exempted, or sent outside the State otherwise than by way of sale.

Analysis: The levy under Section 4(4) attaches to taxable goods purchased in circumstances where no tax is payable by the seller, and it operates when those goods are used as inputs for exempt goods, or for goods disposed of otherwise than by sale, or dispatched outside the State otherwise than by sale. A farmer or agriculturist, though not a dealer, is a person from whom such purchases may be made for the purpose of the provision. The section taxes the purchasing VAT dealer, not the farmer, and the scheme is to secure one stage of tax where the sale point is unavailable.

Conclusion: The levy under Section 4(4) can apply to the purchasing VAT dealer in such cases, and the contention that the farmer is directly taxed was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the first proviso to Section 4(4) permitted proportionate levy on a common input when one of the outputs was exempt or otherwise disposed of.

Analysis: The proviso was treated as a machinery provision governing computation of the taxable turnover where a single common input yields more than one output. The expression common input was given effect according to its plain meaning, and the Court held that the provision does not authorise shifting the levy to derivatives of derivatives or to end products themselves. The tax remains on the input to the extent it can be linked to outputs falling within clauses (i) to (iii) of Section 4(4), and the absence of a uniform formula does not invalidate the levy or prevent assessment on a proportionate basis.

Conclusion: The first proviso was held to authorise proportionate levy on the common input, but only to the extent of the input linked to the relevant non-taxed or exempt output.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy could be sustained in relation to declared goods having regard to Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India and Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The Court held that declared goods are subject to the statutory restrictions in Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, particularly the rate cap and the special treatment of specified commodities. Cotton, paddy and pulses were treated as declared goods, but raw cotton and cotton lint were regarded as the same commodity for the rate restriction, while raw dhal and dehusked dhal were similarly treated as one commodity. The levy under Section 4(4) could not be sustained to the extent it resulted in the aggregate tax on the same declared goods exceeding the statutory ceiling, though the section could still operate in the manner consistent with the Central Act.

Conclusion: The levy was held to be controlled by the restrictions under Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and could not exceed the applicable statutory ceiling on declared goods.

Issue (iv): Whether limitation under Sections 21(3) and 21(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the restriction of input tax credit under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules were correctly applied.

Analysis: The limitation under Section 21(3) was held to run month-wise for each tax period, and the extended period under Section 21(5) was held to be available only where wilful evasion is alleged with supporting factual particulars in the show-cause notice. The Court further held that computation of input tax credit under Rule 20 and the restriction of reimbursement or credit raised factual questions to be examined case by case, and the assessee must establish inconsistency with the Central Act before relief can follow.

Conclusion: The extended limitation could be invoked only on a proper allegation of wilful evasion, and the input tax credit dispute required factual examination by the assessing authority.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were set aside and the matters were directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners, with the substantive legal principles on purchase tax, declared goods, limitation, and input tax credit laid down for guidance.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 4(4) is a charging provision that permits proportionate purchase tax on a common input used for outputs falling within the statutory contingencies, but its operation is controlled by the Central Sales Tax Act in the case of declared goods and by the requirement of a properly pleaded jurisdictional basis for extended limitation.

---