2001 (6) TMI 806 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of exemption on turnover.
3. Interpretation of exemption provisions for rough and polished granite stones.
4. Distinction between rough and polished granite stones for tax purposes.
5. Applicability of legal precedents to the case.
6. Comparison with judgments related to different commodities.
7. Dismissal of writ petitions.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners were assessed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act by the first respondent. The turnover represented sales of granite to dealers in the State and others, leading to the reopening of assessments for disallowing exemptions.

2. The main argument presented was that rough granite sold to export units, when polished, should still be considered the same commodity and be exempt from sales tax. The petitioners contended that polished granite did not constitute a new product.

3. The assessment order highlighted that the petitioners sold rough granite stones to registered dealers, which were later polished, cut, and exported. The factual position raised the question of entitlement to exemption under the CST Act or the APGST Act.

4. The court analyzed the relevant entries in the APGST Act, distinguishing between granite stones and polished granite stones. It was noted that while granite stones were taxed at the last sale in the State, polished granite stones were taxed at the first sale in the State.

5. Legal authorities were cited to argue that rough and polished granite stones should be considered the same commodity. However, the court emphasized the clear and unambiguous distinction made by the legislature between the two types of granite stones.

6. The case was compared to a similar matter involving raw hides and dressed hides, where the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between the two as separate commercial commodities. This comparison supported the court's interpretation of the tax treatment of rough and polished granite stones.

7. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the judgments cited by the petitioners did not apply to the specific entries for raw and polished granite stones in the APGST Act. The judgments related to different commodities were deemed irrelevant to the case at hand, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.