Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2024 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 720 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTClassification of goods - HDPE woven sacks - articles of plastics falling under Item No. 187 of the I Schedule or fall under item No. 5 of the IV Schedule? - exemption from sales tax as covered by item 5 of IV schedule to APGST Act. Whether the disputed turnovers relating to the sale of HDPE woven sacks is entitled for exemption from sales tax as covered by item 5 of IV schedule to APGST Act? - HELD THAT:- The HDPE Woven Fabrics even if included in the I Schedule under the head and sub head, entry No. 59.03 with ‘nil rate’, may be subject to or liable for the additional duties to be levied under that Act No. 58 of 1957, but, unless and until the additional duty is levied i.e actual levy, with some percentage, and not ‘nil rate’, it would be excluded from the category of goods mentioned in entry 5 of IV Schedule of the APGST Act. It would be liable to tax under APGST Act, and would not be exempted from tax under Section 8 of the APGST Act. Woven Fabric is made with plastic granules. It may be ‘man-made fabric’ in entry 5 of the IV Schedule, but it does not qualify for exemption from tax as though included in the I Schedule of the Act No. 58 of 1957, but there is no additional duties levied on such good. The HDPE Woven Fabric being made of plastic would be an article of plastic under entry 187 in I Schedule. In Entry 187, it is not excluded. What has been excluded is HDPE Woven Sacks, which is a different item - HDPE Woven Fabric was liable for taxation under the APGST Act, 1957. The Appellate Tribunal has erroneously decided the question of law regarding the taxability or exemption from tax, with respect to the HDPE Woven Fabrics. Whether the STAT justified in allowing the appeals by setting aside the Revisional orders of the DC (CT)? - HELD THAT:- In Kerala Ayurveda Vydyasala Limited [1999 (1) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, only if the Tribunal had decided any question of law erroneously or has failed to decide the question of law. In that case, no question of law was formulated by the High Court. There was also no finding recorded that the Appellate Tribunal had either decided a question of law erroneously or failed to decide the question of law. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in interfering with the orders of the appellate Tribunal. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition of law that the power of revision is open to be exercised by this court only when the Appellate Tribunal has either erroneously decided a Question of Law or has failed to decide any Question of Law. Present is a case of erroneously deciding a question of law. It cannot be said that the question of law has been decided according to law. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal on a question of law is erroneous. Such an order would be open to interference. It cannot be said that the order is not open for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the APGST Act, 1957. The Tax Revision are allowed.
|