9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onerunits are not eligible for sales tax concession as provided in G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated May 20, 1996, which action left the issue undecided even after the matter was remitted to the respondents twice by this Court for appropriate decision on the point as to whether the process undertaken by the petitioners in the making of packaged drinking water is a manufacturing activity and entitled for the benefit under the G.O., especially so when the ordinary drinking water is brought under item No. 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which is totally exempted from payment of tax whereas aerated and mineral water are brought under item No. 21 of the Sixth Schedule and taxed at 12 per cent. 2.. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated May 20, 1996 through which certain incentives were offered for the industries to be established in certain areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the said G.O. it is clarified by the Government that after reviewing the concessions earlier granted and in modification of earlier orders, the Government decided to introduce a new industrial policy called "Target-2000" in order to accelerate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contemplated under the G.O., but later at the instance of the commercial tax department, the incentive relating to exemption of payment of sale tax was withdrawn. 4.. Questioning the action of the respondents seeking to withdraw the exemption in payment of sales tax, a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 3672 of 2001 were filed on the ground that the eligibility certificates were issued by the State Level Committee and if at all the cancellation is to be effected, the matters shall be placed before the State Level Committee, which alone is competent to cancel the eligibility certificates. A division Bench of this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, primarily agreeing with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, set aside the orders impugned therein and remanded the matters to the State Level Committee and the petitioners were also granted liberty to place necessary material before the Committee and the Committee was required to take appropriate decision. 5.. However, earlier stand was reiterated by the Commissioner of Industries as if the Committee had authorised him to pass orders which were again questioned by another batch of writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Level Committee, but the Committee has failed to examine the process involved in the making of packaged drinking water. It is also stated, each industrial unit costs more than Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs, and that the respondents have not taken note of these factors. It is also submitted that the expression "manufacture" is not defined in the G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated May 20, 1996 and that the ordinary water is mentioned at item No. 12 of the Fourth Schedule under the Sales Tax Act and the same is distinct from the mineral water which is mentioned at item No. 21 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act. The ordinary water mentioned under item No. 12 is exempted from the tax, whereas the water mentioned at item No. 21 of the Sixth Schedule is liable to be taxed at 12 per cent. The learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the respondents failed to note this distinction between the ordinary water and the packaged drinking water finding places in different Schedules. It is further submitted that though sufficient material was placed before the Committee showing the process involved and the expenditure incurred in establishing the small-scale industries, yet the third respondent again in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packaged drinking water is not a manufacturing activity. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners the expression "manufacture" is not defined in the notification itself. When the authorities are not sure about the facets of manufacturing and the activities which would fall within the ambit of manufacture, it is difficult for us to appreciate as to how the benefits extended in the G.O., are sought to be withdrawn to the extent of sales tax incentive. It is also noticed by us that though these petitioners have placed sufficient material before the authorities and explained the process involved in the making of the packaged drinking water, expenditure incurred for plant and machinery for the purpose of these units, which runs from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs and above, the respondents have failed to take notice of these factors while deciding the issue relating to extending tax benefits. Though, twice this Court had directed the authorities to examine the cases, the authorities failed to examine and gave a finding that this activity does not fall within the so called manufacturing activity, though the expression "manufacture" is not at all defined in the G.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
