TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (2) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion case are "nails" made out of iron and steel. The claim of the petitioner is that the sale of the "nails" falls under item 2 of the Third Schedule of the Sales Tax Act and is therefore exempt from sales tax. The argument of the petitioner is that "nails" are made out of iron, and as iron is a declared commodity multiple taxation of iron or its products is not permissible. Accordingly he claimed that the sales of "nails" should be excluded from the taxable turnover. This claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer, Krishna, by his order dated 19th March, 1977, and the appeal filed by the petitioner against that order is also dismissed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is against that order the present rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd special steels of any of the above categories; (x) steel melting scrap in all forms including steel skull, turnings and borings; (xi) steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diameters and lengths, including tube fittings; (xii) tin-plates, both hot dipped and electrolytic and tinfree plates; (xiii) fish plate bars, bearing plate bars, crossing sleeper bars, fish plates, bearing plates, crossing sleepers and pressed steel sleepers, rails-heavy and light crane rails; (xiv) wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets; (xv) wire rods and wires-rolled, drawn, galvanised, aluminised, tinned or coated such as by copper; (xvi) defectives, rejects, cuttings or end pieces of any of the above categories." Before the above amendment by the Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot separately taxable. It was this argument, which has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court by holding that iron and steel does not exhaust the various iron products and that each one of the iron products which has been mentioned is liable to suffer separate taxation. It is accordingly held that each one of the iron commodities should suffer separate tax. After 1972 the State Sales Tax Act has been amended bringing it in harmony with the Central Sales Tax Act by Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 61 of 1972. But that amendment is inconsequential for the purpose of this case. By that amendment all that has been done is to particularise in greater detail the iron products. In fact the Supreme Court has noticed in the abovementione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaning of the Supreme Court judgment in relation to clauses (a) and (c), namely, pig iron and iron scrap, steel scrap, steel ingots, steel billets, steel bars and rods of the pre 1972 law. Accordingly, we reject this argument of the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that "nails" as such are nowhere enumerated in any of the (xvi) clauses in item 2 of the Third Schedule. It cannot, therefore, be urged on the basis of the language of item 2 of the Third Schedule that "nails" should be taxed under that schedule and under that item. But the learned counsel stated that "nails" fall under "wires" mentioned under the heading "wire rods and wires" covered by clause (xv) of item 2 of the Third Schedule. His argument is that "nails" are made out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "wire rods" given by clause (xv) of item 2 of the Third Schedule. The argument of the learned counsel for the dealer that Courts have considered that galvanised sheets are the same as iron and steel in State of A.P. v. Sri Durga Hardware Stores [1973] 32 STC 322 (AP) or that cut-sizes of timber are considered as timber in Ramaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1973] 32 STC 309 (AP) cannot be of any use or of any help to the petitioner in his attempt to show that the nails will not have a distinct and separate entity in the commercial and ordinary use. We accordingly reject this argument. It was then argued by the learned counsel that "nails" can be regarded as defectives, rejects, cuttings or end-pieces of any of the above categories fall....