9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ES KUMAR AND PANKAJ MITHAL JJ. Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate for assisted by Piyush Agrawal, for the petitioners S.P.Kesarwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondents JUDGMENT By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs: (i) that a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the imposition of tax at the higher rate of four per cent by the order dated February 26, 2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned. (ii) that a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the refund of the excess tax realised from petitioner No. 2 in respect of the iron scrap which is iron and steel as defined under section 14(iv)(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act which were imported from outside the State of U. P. and sold within the State of U. P. (iii) that a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued declaring entry No. 6(b) and 6 (a) of the Notification No. 1626 dated May 21, 1994 as invalid and void. (iv) that a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and steel are also be taxed at two per cent, which is applicable to the items mentioned in entry 6(a) of Notification No. 1626, dated May 21, 1994. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. P. Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved is almost covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of Anand Commercial Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad reported in [1997] 107 STC 586; [1998] UPTC 227, wherein the similar entry 24 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 in relation to the groundnut oil or refined oil, has been considered by the apex court, wherein the apex court held that clause (a) of entry 24 is violative of the provisions of articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India in so far as it imposes a higher rate of tax on groundnut oil or refined nil which has been obtained from groundnuts that have not been taxed under the Andhra Pradesh Act. It has been declared that the groundnut oil imported by the assessee from Karnataka for sale in Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and not retrospectively. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishen Ltd. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in [2001] 121 STC 388; [2000] 3 JT Supp. 306. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Iron and steel is one of the declared commodity under section 14 of the Central Act. It is defined in clause (iv) of section 14 of the Central Act which includes the pig iron and cast iron including ingot moulds, bottom plates, iron scrap, caste iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap, etc Under section 15 of the Central Act, the tax on the declared goods cannot be levied more than four per cent. Prior to May 21,1994 iron and steel was liable to tax under Notification No. ST-II-5782/X-10(l)-80-U. P. Act XV-48-Order-81, dated September 7, 1981, which reads as follows: In exercise of the powers under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948) read with section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Ac No. 1 of 1904), and in supersession of all previous notifications issued under section 3AA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 other than that mentioned in sub-item (a) above. M or I 4 per cent. The aforesaid notification has been amended by notification dated June 1, 1998, by which all iron and steel have been subjected to tax at four per cent. Therefore, the dispute relates to the period April 1, 1998 to May 31, 1998. We need not to stay much in the matter and examine the rival submissions in detail, as it appears that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of Anand Commercial Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad [1997] 107 STC 586; [1998] UPTC 227. In the aforesaid case, the appellant was carrying on the business of groundnut oil. Entry 24 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act reads as follows: S. No. Description of Goods Point of levy Kate of tax (1) (2) (3) (4) 24 Groundnut oil or refined oil: (1024) (a) Groundnut oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that oil manufacturers in Andhra Pradesh are in a disadvantageous position and had to be compensated by a lower rate of tax. The State of Andhra Pradesh has not been able to make out any special case for imposing a lower rate of tax on groundnut oil produced within the State. 26. Clause (a) of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is declared violative of the provisions of articles 301 to 304 in so far as it imposes a higher rate of tax on groundnut oil or refined oil which has been obtained from groundnuts that have not been taxed under the Andhra Pradesh Act. It is declared that the groundnut oil imported by the appellant from Karnataka for sale in Andhra Pradesh cannot be taxed at a rate higher than the rate prescribed in clause (b) of entry 24 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Act. Entry No. 6 of the Notification No. 1626, dated May 21, 1994 which is impugned in the present writ petition is similar to entry 24 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. For the reasons given by the Apex Court, we are of the view that entry 6(b) of Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
