Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 6C in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 6A in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 5B in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 5F in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Tvl, Ramco Cement Distribution Co. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 October, 1992
In the order under appeal, the Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes observed that the question to be decided was whether the
depiction of the value of cement and packing material separately in
the A-2 returns was conclusive proof of two independent and
distinct sales; the assessee routinely packed cement,
manufactured by it, in HDPE bags; hitherto cement companies
used to pack cement in gunny bags; but, with the advent of
plastics into the market, all the cement companies, including the
assessee company, had shifted from gunny bags to HDPE bags, as
HDPE bags had a distinct advantage over gunny bags as packing
material for cement; HDPE bags were light in weight; they were
non-porous when compared to gunny bags; cement, packed in
HDPE bags, retain its quality much longer; cement is a product
which gets hardened if exposed to moisture; it is necessary to keep
it always in a packed condition; in the relevant assessment year,
the assessee mostly used HDPE bags as packing material; these
facts made it clear that packing material was an essential
ingredient in the sale of cement; sale of cement, without packing
material, was incomprehensible; if cement is sold in a loose
condition, customers would not purchase it; the assessee
company, in its own interest, packs cement in HDPE bags as soon
as it is produced, and dispatch them to their distributors both
within and outside the State; these distributors purchase cement
from the assessee company, and sell it to their customers; they
receive cement, as cement in bags, from the assessee company,
and sell it to the ultimate customers as cement in bags only; from
the point of manufacture till the ultimate use by the customer,
cement always exists in a packed condition, and is sold in that
condition only; though they had artificially bifurcated the value of
cement and packing material, as reported in the A-2 returns, they
had not charged the value for cement and packing material
separately in the sale invoices raised by them; in the absence of
such separate depiction, sale of cement and HDPE bags is an
integral sale; even if the value of cement and HDPE bags are
separately shown in the invoices, the customer would only be
interested to know how much he is paying per bag of cement; he
would not be interested in knowing whether the distributor has
split the value of Rs.120/- or Rs.150/- into two separate
components; for him the splitting of the value into different
components is only a formatting of the bill in which he is not
interested; in the instant case, there is no splitting in the value of
the goods, and it is an integrated sale of cement only; there is no
evidence to show that the dealers depicted the price of cement and
HDPE bags separately; it must be construed that such depiction,
by the manufacturer alone, is merely an attempt to reduce the tax
burden; it does not prove that there is a separate sale of cement
and packing material; the assessee had failed to prove that the sale
of packing material, involved in the sale of cement, is a separate
and independent sale; the burden of proving that the sale or
purchase, effected by a dealer, is not liable to be taxed or is liable
to be taxed at a reduced rate lies on the dealer in view of Section
7-A of the APGST Act; the assessee had indulged in an
inconvenient artificial bifurcation of the invoice; in the light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel v. State of A.P. ; it
was clear that there is no separate sale of packing material; except
depicting the value of HDPE bags separately in the A-2 returns, the
assessee did not produce any other evidence to prove its case;
where the sale of packing material is integral to the sale of its
contents, splitting the sale value in the A2 returns into various
components does not strengthen the case of the assessee; most of
the sales by the assessee is to its distributors; only on a few
occasions did it sell cement directly to the customers; there were
no purchase orders on record to show that the distributors placed
separate orders for the purchase of packing material, or that they
had accepted a separate price structure for cement and packing
material, or that they had requested for a specific mode of packing
of cement; the assessee did not place on record any periodical price
charts or quotations prepared and sent to its customers showing
the value of cement and packing material separately; it could not,
therefore, be said that the customers consciously purchased the
packing material in addition to the purchase of cement; both the
parties involved did not intend to sell and buy the packing material
separately; the depiction of the value of HDPE bags separately by
the assessee company was a one sided act, and did not imply any
independent sale of HDPE bags; this was merely an attempt to
reduce the tax burden; in Raj Sheel1, the Supreme Court held that
one should decide whether or not there is an independent sale of
packing material, purely based on facts; this principle was followed
in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajastan , and TVL Ramco
Cement Distribution Co. Ltd. v. State of Tamilnadu , wherein it
was held that packing material charges cannot be deducted even if
they are charged separately under the Act; in the present case,
customers negotiate and purchase cement packed in bags from the
assessee company at a particular price per bag; the packing
material i.e., HDPE bags, being the primary packing material,
reach the ultimate consumer; the transfer of property, in the HDPE
bags, is integral and inseparable from the sale of cement; the total
amount collected by the assessee in the invoice represents a single
sale to be taxed at the rate applicable to the cement; the
contention of the assessee that there was a separate sale of
packing material was not acceptable; there was only one integrated
sale of cement and the bags; and the entire amount collected by
the assessee, in its invoices, was liable to be taxed at the rate
applicable to cement, and not at two rates as pleaded by the
authorised representative. The Commissioner confirmed the earlier
proposal to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
M/S.Sri Venkata Rama Oil Industries ... vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, ... on 12 March, 2015
Sri S. Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel for the appellant,
made a feeble attempt to contend that, as the APGST Act did not
provide for a second revision, the Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes could not again revise the order of the assessing authority as
the said order had already been subjected to revision by the
Deputy Commissioner. Learned Counsel would, however, fairly
state that, in view of the judgment of the Division bench in M/s.
Agarwal Industries Limited v. The Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad , this contention may not be
available to be urged before this Court.