TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th these Tax Revision Cases is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 3. T.R.C.Nos.79 and 239 of 2003 are filed under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "APGST Act") assailing the order, dated 12.09.2002, in T.A.No.112 of 1998 and order, dated 12.09.2002, in T.A.No.111 of 1998 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal".) 4. T.R.C.No.79 of 2003 is taken as a lead case to decide the issue involved. The circumstances, which lead to filing of T.R.C.No.79 of 2003, are as under:- The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Main Bazar, Guntur doing business in V.Belts, Transmission Bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed the T.A. The same is challenged in this revision case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fenoplast vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [MANU/SC/1149/1998] wherein the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Good Year India's case (3 cited supra) was found fault with, the present revision case has to be allowed. He took us through the said judgment and also entries in I Schedule, IV Schedule and VI Schedule coupled with the tax paid under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (for short, "Central Act 58 of 1957" to contend that the petitioner herein is liable for exemption. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 cited supra) mainly on the ground that the case pertains to assessment year 1975-1976 when Entry 101 of I Schedule was not in Statute Book. The fact that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Tribunal imposed tax basing on the Division Bench judgment of the composite High Court in Good Year India's case (3 cited supra) is not seriously disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It is also to be noted that the subject matter of dispute is a cotton fabric, which is also not in dispute. In fact, learned State representative did not dispute that transmission beltings sold by the petitioner as cotton fabrics. That being the position, it is now to be seen whether the petitioner is liable to pay any tax. 9. Section 5 of APGST Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Tax Act and accordingly, exempted under Section 8 thereof. While upholding the contention of the appellants, a Division Bench of the High Court in the said case, held as under:- "In our considered view the effect of inclusion of Rexine in Entry 174 of the First Schedule to the A.P. GST Act cannot have the effect of taxing the turnover of the sales or purchases of Rexine at the rate mentioned in Schedule I in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the A.P. GST Act read with Section 15 of the CST Act, as pointed out above, and thus that entry has to be read down to authorise eligibility of sales tax on the turnover of declared goods including Rexine subject to the provisions of Section 6 of the A.P. GST Act read with Section 15 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms of Section 8. 5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside to the extent aforestated. There shall be no order as to costs." In view of the above findings and since the petitioner has paid additional tax under the Central Act 58 of 1957 and in view of the admitted decision that the subject matter of dispute is a cotton fabric, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for exemption. 11. The findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in our view, clearly applies to the case on hand. Explanation to IV Schedule of the State Sales Tax Act makes it clear that the expression used in Item 5 thereof has the meaning that is assigned to in the Central Act 58 of 1957. Hence, the words cot....