2001 (10) TMI 1124 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Xerox machines under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Whether Xerox machines fall under entry 12 (duplicating machines) or entry 83 (all kinds of machinery) of the First Schedule.
3. Application of specific versus general tax entries.
4. Ambiguity in tax classification and benefit of doubt to the dealer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Xerox Machines:
The primary issue is whether Xerox machines should be classified as duplicating machines under entry 12 or as machinery under entry 83 of the First Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The dealer argued that Xerox machines, which can enlarge and contract copies and operate electrically, should fall under entry 83, which covers all kinds of machinery operated by electricity. The Deputy Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, treated Xerox machines as duplicating machines under entry 12, subjecting them to a higher tax rate.

2. Entry 12 vs. Entry 83:
The dealer contended that Xerox machines are not simple duplicators but advanced machines capable of various functions, and hence should be classified under entry 83. The Tribunal, however, affirmed that the primary function of Xerox machines is to make copies, aligning them with duplicating machines under entry 12. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Bhuji Products v. State of Gujarat, which held that the principal function of a Xerox machine is to make copies, irrespective of the technology used, thus classifying it as a duplicating machine.

3. Specific vs. General Tax Entries:
The dealer argued that even if Xerox machines could fall under both entries, they should be taxed under entry 83, which provides a lower tax rate. The court, however, supported the view that specific entries prevail over general entries. Entry 12, which specifically mentions duplicating machines, is a special entry, whereas entry 83 is a general entry for all kinds of machinery. The court cited precedents, including Goodyear India Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation, which established that specific entries take precedence over general entries.

4. Ambiguity and Benefit of Doubt:
The dealer further argued that any ambiguity in classification should be resolved in favor of the dealer, citing State of Andhra Pradesh v. Karnatakam Govindayya Setty and Sons and Indo National Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court, however, found no ambiguity in the classification of Xerox machines. It held that the natural, ordinary, and popular meaning of "Xerox machine" aligns it with duplicating machines under entry 12. The court emphasized that when words are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning, as stated in Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Xerox machines are to be treated as duplicating machines falling under entry 12 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act. It upheld the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the tax revision case, affirming that there is no merit in the dealer's contention. The petition was dismissed with no costs.