State of Andhra Pradesh vs Stencils And Stencils Ltd.

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The State of Andhra Pradesh is the petitioner in this tax revision case, filed u/s 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act). The petitioner challenges the validity of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 669 of 1987, dated November 29, 1985.

The short question that arises for consideration, in this tax revision case, is whether stencil paper is taxable under entry 12 or entry 143 of the First Schedule to the Act. In the said order the Tribunal has taken the view, following its earlier order, that the turnover relating to the sale of stencil paper is taxable under entry 143 of the First Schedule. It is the correctness of this view that is assailed before us.

The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes has cited number of decisions before us to press the point that stencil paper is not a paper within the meaning of entry 143 and that it should be brought under entry 12 of the First Schedule. Of all the cases cited by the learned Special Government Pleader, one which deals with this issue is the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. [1974] 33 STC 333 ORI, wherein the question involved was whether stencil paper is paper within the meaning of serial No. 7-A of the Schedule to the notification issued by the Orissa Government. Serial No. 7-A of the said notification was in the following terms :

"Paper including all kinds of pasteboard, millboard, straw-board, cardboard, blotting-papers, newsprint, cartridge paper, packing paper, paper registers, note-books, exercise books, envelops, labels, letter pads, writing tables and flat files made out of paper."

Considering that item, the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court held that stencil paper was not paper within the meaning of serial No. 7-A of the notification.

Now it will be useful to extract entry 12 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Act under which the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes seeks to bring in the stencil paper and also entry 143 which was held to include stencil paper by the Tribunal :

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. No. Description of goods Point Rate of Effective of levy tax from ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Entry 12 Typewriters, tabulating At the 10 paise 1-8-1986 machines, calculating point of in the machines, teleprinters first sale rupee. and teleprinting machines in the and duplicating machines State. 16 -do- 1-4-1995 and parts and accessories thereof, including typewriting ribbons. (1012) Entry 143 Paper of all kinds At the 7 paise 8-7-1983 (including paste-board, point of in the mill-board, straw board first rupee. and card-board), that sale in is to say - the State. (i) cigarette tissue; Ins. as item 19 (ii) blotting, toilet or target tissue, of Sixth teleprinter, typewriting, manifold, Schedule. bank, bond or art paper, chrome paper, tub-sized paper, cheque paper, stamp paper, cartridge paper, parchment and coated board (including art board, chrome board and board for playing cards); (iii) printing and writing paper, packing and wrapping paper, straw board and pulp board, including grey board, corrugated board, duplex and triplex boards or other sorts; (iv) all other kinds of paper and paper board, not otherwise specifically mentioned above, including carbon paper but excluding cinematographic and photographic paper. (Omitted w.e.f. 1-4-1995). (1143) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

A perusal of entry 12 of the First Schedule shows that under that entry typewriters, tabulating machines, calculating machines, teleprinters and teleprinting machines and duplicating machines and parts and accessories thereof, including typewriting ribbons are taxable. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is that stencil paper is an accessory of duplicating machine. We are unable to accept this contention. In Jaiswal & Sons v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1992] 86 STC 416 AP, the Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.) is a member, has laid down the distinction between an accessory and a part thus :

"The expression ''accessories'' means something which is additional or an adjunct but not an essential or integral part. It connotes an unessential feature."

................ "([Observation of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in Vithal Chhagan and Sons Vs. The State of Gujarat, ...........the word ''part'' means ''an integral portion'' something essentially belonging to a larger whole; that which together with another or other makes up a whole'' and a spare part would, therefore, mean any integral part of an article which is carried, held, or kept in reserve for future use or to supply an emergency or which is addition or extra."

Applying the test laid down in the said case, it cannot be held that stencil paper is an accessory to the duplicating machine.

Now coming to entry 143 of the First Schedule, it is manifest that the entry is couched in very wide language. Apart from all kinds of paper, it takes in its fold all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specifically mentioned above and includes carbon paper but excludes cinematographic and photographic paper from its purview. Entry 143 is much wider than the said item at serial No. 7-A of the notification issued by the Orissa Government. Entry 143 takes in its fold all kinds of paper unless they are specifically mentioned in any other entry in the Schedule and the stencil paper is not mentioned in any one of the entries. Having regard to the wide language of the said entry, in our view stencil paper falls within entry 143. On a comparison of this entry with the item at serial No. 7-A of the notification in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd [1974] 33 STC 333 (Ori), it can immediately be noticed that the item under the Orissa notification was very truncated. That is why, stencil paper was held not to be falling within that item.

The same view was taken by the Division Bench of this court in State of A.P. v. Kores (India) Limited (1989) 9 APSTJ 229, wherein it was held as follows :

"....... Having regard to the wide language of entry 143 gives to the word ''paper'' it is not possible for us to say that stencil paper can be taxed under entry 12."

For the above reasons, we find no merit in the tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.