AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—These two T.R.Cs. are directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 1042 of 1979 dated August 26, 1985. T.R.C. No. 38 of 1986 is filed by the State and T.R.C. No. 97 of 1986 is filed by the assessee.
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal which is the subject-matter of these T.R.Cs. is valid in law.
The assessee, M/s. Aswani Industries, Hyderabad, is a registered dealer having industrial licence for manufacture of automobile parts. The assessee sold certain goods described as w. disc in the assessment year 1974-75. The turnover of sale of these goods is the subject of these T.R.Cs. It appears that describing the goods as wheel disc, the assessee exported the goods and those goods were taxed as inter-State sales at the rate of 12 per cent. In local sales, the goods were described as w. discs. The assessing authority issued notice to the assessee calling upon it to show cause why the goods should not be treated as automobile parts and taxed at 12 1/4 per cent and 6 1/4 per cent. The explanation given by the assessee to the assessing authority is that the goods were meant for use as surgical equipment and sterilisation. A sample of the goods was produced before the assessing authority who found that the goods are hub-caps and could not be used for sterilisation of surgical equipments as they were only plates and that no such plates were used for sterilisation purposes. Accordingly he treated the goods as hub-caps and assessed the disputed turnover at 12 1/4 per cent and 6 1/4 per cent. On the assessee''s appeal against the order of assessment to the Assistant Commissioner, C.T. (Appeals), the appellate authority, having noted the finding of the assessing authority that the goods in question were hub-caps, also pointed out that all other items sold by the assessee were taxed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as automobile parts. It did not accept the plea of the assessee that the goods in question are hospital equipment. The appellate authority also noticed that during the course of inter-State trade also, hub-caps were sold and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to assume that the corresponding sales of wheel caps within the State did not related to hub-caps. It pointed out that the assessee had a duty to place before the departmental authorities the nature of goods actually manufactured by producing the sample or giving the registration number and address of the purchasers who admit of verification or ascertainment of the actual nature of the goods sold and observed that the assessee had maintained the bills and records in such a way as to frustrate all possibilities of ascertaining the true nature of the goods to prove by direct evidence that the goods are hub-caps and not water discs. It thus confirmed the finding of the assessing authority that the goods were hub-caps. The assessee then carried the matter in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to accept the reasoning of the assessing authority and the appellate authority in arriving at the conclusion that the goods were wheel disc or wheel caps. But it also rejected the contention of the assessee that what it sold in the inter-State sales, were automobile parts and that the goods sold by it within the State, were stainless steel articles. It observed that had the assessee produced manufacturing accounts relating to automobile parts or stainless steel parts, the Tribunal would have accepted the plea and as that was not done, it directed that 50 per cent of the turnover be assessed as automobile parts and 50 per cent as stainless steel products and thus allowed the appeal in part on August 26, 1985. It is this order which gave rise to these tax revisions.
The learned Government Pleader contends that the Tribunal being the final authority of facts ought to have decided as to whether the goods in question are water disc or wheel caps/hub-caps; therefore the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contends that no the facts and in the circumstances of the case as no definite finding could have been recorded, the Tribunal has resolved the controversy equitably by directing that one half of the turnover be assessed as relating to wheel caps/hub-caps and the other half treating as stainless steel products.
We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not recorded a definite finding on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as to whether the goods in question can reasonably be taken as wheel caps/hub-caps or as surgical goods of stainless steel. The Tribunal did not agree with the findings of the assessing authority and the appellate authority that the goods in question were wheel caps/hub-caps and at the same time it did not accept the plea of the assessee that they are water disc or stainless steel surgical appliances. This Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act cannot go into the questions of fact to decide the identity or the nature of the goods. In the circumstances, we consider it just and proper to set aside the order under revisions and remit the matter to the Tribunal directing it to record finding as to whether the disputed turnover relates to wheel caps/hub-caps or stainless steel goods.
As the matter relates to the assessment year 1974-75, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as practicable.
The T.R.Cs are accordingly allowed. No costs.
Petitions allowed accordingly.