TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dealer claiming the benefit must own a reroller. The said order of the appellate authority was revised by the Joint Commissioner (CT), relying upon certain decisions of this Court. The said order of revision was assailed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which negatived the contentions of the petitioner-dealer and confirmed the revisional order. Hence, the present tax revision case. 3.. The learned counsel for the petitioner-dealer contended that the revisional authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal is in error in denying the relief that was available under the G.O. issued by the Government. It is stated that it is not required that the dealer himself should own a reroller or a mini steel plant-cum-reroller in order to avail the benefit. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner purchased re-rollable iron scrap and got it converted into the finished product. Both the purchase and sales were affected within the State and therefore the requirements of the G.O. are complied with. Hence, the petitioner-dealer is entitled for the set-off of the sales tax already paid on raw material against the sales tax payable on the finished product. 4.. The learned counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sales tax paid on the raw material against the finished product. 8.. For convenience the contents of the G.O. Ms. No. 774, dated July 9, 1985 are extracted hereunder: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Andhra Pradesh Act VI of 1957), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that where a tax has been levied and collected under the said Act in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of steel ingots or billets or rerollable scrap referred to in item 2 of the Third Schedule to the said Act, the tax leviable under section 6 of the said Act on the re-rolled finished products manufactured within the State from out of such ingots or billets or rerollable scrap by the steel rerollers and mini-steel plants-cum-rerollers (in case of purchase of ingots, billets and rerollable scrap by them in the State) situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and sold inside the State shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied and collected on such ingots, billets and rerollable scrap with effect from the 1st April, 1985." As found by the Appellate Tribunal, as per the said G.O., the dealer has to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was a dealer in linseed oil, bought oil-seeds, and got them crushed in another's mill, paid him the charges for crushing, brought the oil to his own premises and then sold the oil. Under the said circumstances, it was held that the assessee was a manufacturer of linseed oil. In the present case, we are not concerned with the term manufacturer, therefore the said judgment is not of any assistance. The next decision is in the case of M. Madar Khan & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Anantapur [1971] 27 STC 18 (AP). In this case, a division Bench of this Court considered the term "miller", with reference to the provisions of section 6, entry 3, Schedule IV of the Act. As per the said entry 3 of the Fourth Schedule, groundnuts were exigible to tax when purchased by a miller in the State at the point of purchase by the miller and in all other cases at the point of purchase by the last dealer who buys in the State. In that case, the petitioner carried on the business of purchasing groundnuts, decorticating the same into kernel and selling the kernel to millers or other dealers or exporting the kernel outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner owned no equipmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the State. But the apex Court negatived the contention of the double tax and held as under: "(i) that the validity of the levy of tax upon the purchase by a last dealer could be questioned only by one who was sought to be taxed as a last dealer; and as the appellants were millers they could not question the validity of the levy of the tax upon a purchase by a last dealer; (ii) that the liability to tax fell only at one point. Each of the appellants became liable to the payment of tax as a purchasing miller just as a last dealer would be liable on the purchases made by him. The last dealer and the miller, who purchased presumably to convert the groundnuts into other products, were placed on an equal footing. There was no possibility of double taxation of the same product at more than one point of purchase." 11.. The next decision is in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pottimurthy Subbarao & Co. [1979] 44 STC 19 (AP). This judgment was rendered while considering the item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Act and considered the term "miller". In this case, the dealer purchased groundnuts and got it decorticated in mills neither owned by assessee nor taken on lease. T....