Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Koganti Steels Pvt. Limited, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 April, 2023
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TREVC No.133 of 2004
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) This tax revision case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2003 passed by the Sales Tax Appeal Tribunal (STAT) / respondent confirming the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. The petitioner mainly projected the following questions of law in this TREVC:
(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the twin facts of error and prejudice to the interest of Revenue are satisfied in the instant case to warrant revision of assessment?
(b) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in not holding that there is no material to substantiate that the assessment is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in the face of admitted position that tax was levied and collected on the self same turnover in the hands of the first seller?
(c) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in not directing the adjustment of tax paid by the 1st seller on the goods against the corresponding tax payable on the self same goods by the petitioner?2
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri B.Srinivas, and learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes representing the respondent.
4. The main contention of the petitioner before the Revisional and Appellate authorities is that the petitioner purchased iron scrap from registered dealers within the Andhra Pradesh to an extent of Rs.58,48,440.54 ps during the year 1997-1998 and relevant tax was paid by the selling dealers themselves or their sellers i.e., the seller M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam limited, Visakhapatnam collected tax from the petitioner and remitted and since the tax was collected by the sellers at some preceding point, and no tax can be levied against the petitioner at the time of sale by his purchasers as the material has already suffered sales tax and the petitioner cannot again be subjected to sales tax on the same goods which amount to double taxation especially against the declared goods on which double taxation is prohibited. It is the alternative contention of the petitioner that assuming that the levy of tax in the hands of the petitioner is legitimate, the tax paid at the preceding sale point by the petitioner should be given credit while determining the tax payable by the petitioner.
5. We gave our anxious consideration to the above contention of the petitioner and perused the impugned revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and appellate order passed by the STAT. Both the aforesaid authorities disallowed the contention of the petitioner on the following observations:
3
(i) As per the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the APGST Act'), the description of the goods dealt with by the petitioner fall under entry 2A of III schedule to the APGST Act and those goods are liable to tax at the point of purchase by the last dealer in the State i.e., the petitioner in the instant case. Levy of the tax at any other point or on a party is illegal and if it is levied on such point or party, it is possible for the dealer to claim exemption on the relevant turnover by producing evidence to the effect that the said goods were purchased by the registered dealer within the A.P. and thereby there will be a danger of revenue loss to the State. Added to it, the intention of the legislature in levying the tax at the point of last purchase was to levy tax on the maximum possible turnover or the goods within the State and if the tax is levied on the first seller in a chain of two or more stages before the goods reach the last purchase point, the first seller will be definitely paying tax on less turnover when compared with the second seller and so on. Therefore, on this premise the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted.
6. We find the impugned orders in the light of the above observations, legally and factually justified. The petitioner's claim that since it paid tax to its seller, the same can be given credit at the time of its selling the commodity cannot be accepted since the thumb rule is that the tax has to be levied and collected at the last point of purchase but not any other point or the person as 4 observed by the aforesaid authorities. Thus, at the outset, we do not find any merits in the contention of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this TREVC is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J ___________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J 20.04.2023 MVA