9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises in all these appeals, they are disposed of by this common order. 3.. For better appreciation of facts, we trace the facts relating to Special Appeal No. 11 of 1996, which are as under: The appellant is a registered dealer under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act and is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar Circle. During the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 the appellant sold "Aurofac" which is poultry-feed prepared with rice husk/bran, cotton seed/maize oil and containing small percentage of "Auromycin Chlorotetracycline", which has some medicinal value. The product is sold in packed quantities of kg., 10 kg. and 20 kg. bags and as the ingredients are very light, the volume o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing a decision of this Court in State of A.P. v. Alved Pharma (1989) 9 APSTJ 230 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Balaji Poultry Agencies [1991] 82 STC 353 (AP); (1991) 12 APSTJ 147 and held that "Aurofac" is poultry-feed liable to tax at 1 per cent basic rate. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner also held that the target discounts allowed subsequent to the sales are to be allowed as discounts following the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Motor Industries Co. [1983] 53 STC 48 and the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd. [1987] 65 STC 41. 6.. However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued show cause notice o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e First Schedule. This takes us to the second question of law, i.e., whether the Commissioner is correct in holding that the target discounts allowed by the appellant are not deductible. 9.. It is though contended by the learned Government Pleader that two abovementioned decisions cited on behalf of the appellant are not relevant for the purpose of these cases, we do not think that such a plea could be accepted by us. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd. [1987] 65 STC 41 a division Bench of this Court, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Motor Industries Co. [1983] 53 STC 48 held thus: "The dealer was in the practice of allowing discount every year to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
