AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The State, in this tax revision case, questions the correctness of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 776/1984, made on July 25, 1985. By the said order, the Tribunal remanded the case to the assessing authority for fresh disposal according to law.
The learned Government Pleader submits that the remand is not justified and is unnecessary and therefore the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
The assessee is a registered dealer under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. It carries on business as manufacturers and dealers in opticals. It has two branches in Hyderabad and one branch at Warangal. For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessing authority granted exemption of Rs. 1,07,287 on the ground that the same represents the second sales of lenses, frames and cases purchased locally by the assessee for Rs. 75,667.66. The Deputy Commissioner, however, set aside that order and subjected the disputed turnover to tax. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal found no objection for granting exemption in respect of lenses and frames since those goods are taxable only at the point of first sale in the State. The Tribunal referred to entry 107 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in this regard. First Schedule of the above Act enumerates goods in respect of which single point tax is leviable u/s 5. Entry 107 of the Schedule specifies "Spectacles, goggles, glasses, lenses and frames" to that effect. Admittedly, in the instant case the turnover relating to lenses and frames was in respect of second sales. The contention that if the lenses and frames were sold as spectacles, the sales could not be treated as second sales cannot be accepted because whether the lenses and frames were sold as they were or after the lenses were put in frame in the form of spectacle makes no difference as all those goods are part and parcel of the same entry.
In Telangana Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994] 93 STC 187: (1994) 18 APSTJ 163 the question before the Supreme Court was whether a new commercial commodity comes into existence when wires are drawn from wire rods ? Dealing with entries in sub-clause (xv) of clause (iv) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, relating to wire rods and wires clubbing together, the Supreme Court held that wires were integral part of rods and not distinct from rods, because the sub-item speaks about wires "rolled, drawn, galvanised, aluminised, tinned or coated". It was further held :
"......... the Legislature did not want wires, even if the same be a separate commercial commodity, to be taken as a commodity different from the rods for the purpose of permitting imposition of sales tax once again on wires despite rods having been subjected to sales tax. Indeed, the two goods - rods and wires - are so closely knit in the sub-item that any separation of these does not seem permissible."
In view of the above judgment, it is not permissible for the State to contend that though spectacles are included in entry 107 of the First Schedule along with lenses and frames, they have to be treated as separate commercial commodity and shall be taxed independently.
The tax revision case therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed.