9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal having been rejected, it came up in revision to this Court. Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the two requirements of G.O. Ms. No. 604, Rev.(S), dated April 9, 1981, which exempt the turnover of seeds under the State Act, are not cumulative. Even if one of the requirements of the G.O., is satisfied, the assessee is entitled to exemption. He further contends that the exemption granted under the said G.O. Ms. No. 604 dated April 9, 1981 is a general exemption and qualifies even under section 8(2-A) of the Central Act. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on the other hand, submits that the requirements of the said G.O., are that the seeds must be "certified and truthfully labelled seeds". He further contends that the expression used "for agricultural purposes" in the said G.O., is indeed a condition under which the exemption is granted. Therefore, the turnover does not qualify for exemption under section 8(2-A) of the Central Act. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, it would be necessary to note the provisions of section 9 of the State Act, which read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the explanation for the purposes of that sub-section to mean that when under the law of the State, the sale or purchase of such goods is exempted only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions, then it would not be exempt from tax generally. A combined reading of all these provisions leads to the conclusion that for the purposes of claiming exemption under section 8(2-A) of the Central Act, two conditions must be satisfied. They are: (i) the turnover of the sale of goods in question must be exempted under the appropriate State Act, (ii) the grant of exemption under the State Act is not under any specified circumstances or specified conditions. In other words, it is only when an exemption is granted under the State law without specifying any circumstances or conditions that exemption can be claimed under sub-section (2-A) of section 8 of the Central Act. Whether in a given case, the exemption granted under the State Act is under specified circumstances or conditions is a question of fact which has to be determined having regard to the relevant provision of the Government Order which grants exemption. To determine that question in the instant case, it would be usef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at purpose. This is an optional process and unlike section 7, it is not mandatory. The purport of the Government Order, referred to above [G.O. Ms. No. 604, Rev.(S), dated April 9, 1981] is to grant exemption to both categories of seeds, viz., "certified seeds" as well as "truthfully labelled seeds". This appears to be the intention of the Government in granting the exemption. Memorandum No. 13630/CT-11-2/89-19, dated April 26, 1994 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (CT. II) Department is clarificatory of that intention as held by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.), was a party, in its judgment in T.R.C. No. 33 of 1994 dated October 18, 1994. [Gururaj Seeds (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 97 STC 246] As stated above, "certified and truthfully labelled seeds" are seeds which have been so classified under the "Seeds Act". Therefore, the requirements of the G.O., are only indicative of the nature of the goods which are entitled to exemption and do not specify any circumstance or condition under which the seeds are entitled to exemption. The submission that the expression "for agricultural purposes" specifies t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplying electrical energy for its generation or distribution" were interpreted to mean as a specific condition under which the exemption was granted, so the same interpretation should be placed on the words "for agricultural purposes". We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention of the learned Government Pleader for we have already explained the necessity of using the words "for agricultural purposes" in the context of the Seeds Act. On this aspect, we may refer to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority [1992] 85 STC 432*. While referring to the judgment in Indian Alluminium Cables' case [1976] 38 STC 108, their Lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out as follows: ".........As may be seen from the provision the two conditions relate to the purchaser-company being a licensed undertaking supplying electrical energy to the public and the goods sold are for use by the said undertaking in generation or distribution of such energy. This Court rejected the contention of the dealer that they are descriptive of the goods and not conditions and held that they are conditions under which exemption is granted and that, therefore, sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
