High CourtsDivision Bench

Jayadurga Industries vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 November 1994 · Citation: (1995) 99 STC 74

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Mohammed Quadri, J · A.S. Bhate, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Revision Case No. 46 of 1987
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 331 words

Avinash Somakant Bhate, J.—This is the tax revision preferred by the State Government challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2.

The question involved in this T.R.C. is whether the bends and junction boxes made of P.V.C. material have to be taxed under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the APGST Act", for short) as per entry No. 38 or entry No. 88 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act.

3.

There is no controversy whatsoever that the bends and the junction boxes which are subject-matter of this dispute are P.V.C. material. At the material time, i.e., for the assessment year 1981-82, entry No. 88 was "for articles of P.V.C. materials". The said entry, it may be pointed out has been omitted in 1988. Entry No. 38 so far as relevant for our purposes at the relevant time was :

"All kinds of electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances, that is to say -

...........

(ii) casings, cappings, reapers, bends, junction boxes, meter boards, etc., other than those made of wood ......"

4.

The question therefore, is whether the articles, bends and junction boxes in the present case are electrical goods as they are other than those made of wood as per entry No. 38 above. If the functional test is to be applied then perhaps it will have to be said that the articles in question are electrical goods. It is evident that the junction boxes cannot be used for any other purposes except for electrical fittings. Thus we have no hesitation in holding that articles in question clearly and squarely fall under entry No. 38.

5.

In the passing we may point out that this question may not arise now in view of the deletion of entry No. 88 and also due to recasting of entry No. 38.

6.

In the result, the T.R.C. is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.

7.

Petition dismissed.