TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding March 31, 1993 under the Act, 1941 and claimed deduction under section 5(2)(a)(va) of the Act, 1941 out of the gross turnover on the ground that the wire rods and goods manufactured, i.e., wires are the same commodity and are covered under sub-clause (xv) of section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner since had paid tax on the purchase of wire rods, no tax therefore, was payable on the sale of wires. The respondent No. 1 by an order of assessment dated June 30, 1995 disallowed the claim for the consignment of sale of goods to Delhi. The claim under section 5(2)(a)(v) however, was allowed considering the judgment of this Tribunal, that wire rods and wires were the same commodity. 3. An appeal was filed be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed in view of the judgment delivered by this Tribunal holding that wire and wire rods were declared goods and covered under the same sub-clause (xv) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Moreover, the part of the assessment order where the claim of exemption was allowed, was also not a subjectmatter for decision by the appellate authority, the respondent No. 2, in appeal. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 cannot levy tax by merely changing the opinion to the effect that wire and wire rods were different commercial commodity. The part of the assessment order which was never challenged in the appeal cannot merge with the appellate order. The notice to review the order by rejecting exemption allowed under section 5(2)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the assessment order dated June 30, 1995 passed by the ACCT/CD/under section 11(1) of the BF (ST) Act, 41 for the pd. 4QE March 31, 1993. In the said assessment order learned ACCT/CD allowed Rs. 9,45,30,178.77 as deduction from C.T. under section 5(2)(a)(va) being sale of wires which were manufactured from wire rods purchased in W.B. on payment of tax. Wire rod and wires are two different commercial commodity and wire rod is converted to wire through manufacturing activities. So, the said claim of deduction is not available to you in terms of provision of section 5(2)(a)(va) of the Act. So Rs. 9,45,30,178.77 is required to be taxed at 4 per cent under section 5(1)(c) of the Act. For that my appellate order will be revised to impose ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellate order on the ground that the deduction claimed on the steel wires was not available, is against the decision of the honourable Supreme Court. 12.. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad also held in a case of Hyderabad Wire & Allied Products v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in [1999] 115 STC 286 that the judgment dealing directly with the entry in question if doubted in later judgment dealing with different entry cannot be held that the previous judgment was overruled. At page 290, thus the honourable Court held as follows: "It is true that a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while interpreting the entry 'hides and skins whether in a raw or dressed state' was not inclined to place reliance on the Telangana I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the learned Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the order passed by the assessing authority granting exemption never merged with the appellate order passed by the respondent No. 2. The appellate authority, hence, cannot review the order passed by the assessing authority. In support of his contention, the learned lawyer relied on the decisions reported in [1967] 19 STC 144 (Mad.) (State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.), [1975] 35 STC 601 (AP) (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Rama Laxmi Satyanarayana Rice Mill) and [1984] 55 STC 54 (MP) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sanawad Co-operative Society). The general principles of merger in all these decided cases are that any appeal, if it is preferred against any order passed by the lower ....