Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The State Of A.P. Rep. By The State ... vs Cynamid India Ltd. on 3 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2002]128STC287(AP)
ORDER S.R.Nayak, J.
1. The respondent company is an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar Circle, and it is dealing in sale of Drugs, Medicines, Poultry Medicines and Pesticides. The Assessing authority assessed the sales of Aurofec manufactured by the assessee at the rate of 2,2% classifying the same as poultry feed falling under entry 86 of the first schedule to the APGST Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad (Rural) Division took up suo-moto revision and found that the assessing authority has wrongly assessed the sales of Aurofac at the rate of 2.2% classifying it as a poultry feed, and treating the Aurofac as Medcine falling under entry 37 of First Schedule of the Act, taxed it at the rate of 5%. Aggrieved by the said order, of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal opined that the dominant ingredient of Aurofac is only the Rice husk, and therefore, the revisional authority ought not to have taxed at the rate of 5% treating it as a medicine under entry 37 of the First Schedule, and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence this Tax Revision Case by the Department.
2. The finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is essentially a finding on question of fact. It is trite to state that the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the APGST Act. The only thing to be seen by us is whether that finding recorded by the Tribunal on pure question of fact is based on some acceptable material and evidence. The Tribunal after referring to the ingredients of the product has concluded that the product cannot be treated to be a medicine in view of the fact that the primary dominant ingredient of the product is only Rice Husk. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or based on no evidence, and this case does not involve any question of law. There are no merits in this Tax revision case, and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.