9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1977 (10) TMI 98 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues: Classification of "butter churn" and "weigh bowls" under entry 54 of Schedule I of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Analysis: The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, delivered by Justice Chennakesav Reddy, dealt with the classification of "butter churn" and "weigh bowls" under entry 54 of Schedule I of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner was assessed for the year 1971-72, with a turnover of Rs. 2,84,913.62, including sales of "butter churn" and "weigh bowls." The Deputy Commissioner proposed a revision of assessment, contending that these items were improperly assessed as general goods. The petitioner argued that these items were specialized equipment for dairy projects, not typical stainless steel articles. The Deputy Commissioner disagreed, leading to an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the decision. The petitioner then filed a revision before the High Court. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that "butter churn" was a dairy equipment with components like a gear-box and motor, not solely made of stainless steel, and "weigh bowls" were not stainless steel articles either. The counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing interpreting words in their popular and commercial sense. The High Court analyzed the nature of "butter churn" and "weigh bowls." It concluded that "butter churn" was a composite machinery, not a typical stainless steel article, and thus did not fall under entry 54. However, "weigh bowl" was considered a stainless steel article akin to household utensils, falling under the said entry. Therefore, the High Court held that "weigh bowl" fell within entry 54 of Schedule I, as determined by the Tribunal. On the other hand, regarding "butter churn," the decision of the Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner was set aside, affirming that it did not fall under entry 54. The revision was partly allowed, with no costs imposed, and the advocate's fee set at Rs. 200.
|
