A revision under Section 22 (1) of the APGST Act was filed challenging the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order allowing the assessee’s appeal regarding the tax classification of “meal maker”. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the revision.
Revision dismissed with no costs awarded to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
T.R.C.No.20 of 1999
JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):
Heard Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes for the Revenue and Sri G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.
2. This revision under Section 22 (1) of the APGST Act (Act) is preferred against the order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 07-11-1997, allowing the appeal T.A.No.850 of 1996 preferred by the respondent-assessee. The issue involved before the Tribunal was whether the commodity “meal maker” is to be charged to tax under Entry 44-A of the Ist Schedule or as a general commodity, under the provisions of the Act. This revision pertains to the assessment year 1986-87.
3. In respect of an earlier assessment year, in the assessee’s own appeals, in T.A.Nos.18 of 1987 and 498 of 1988, the Tribunal by the order dated 28-8-1999 upheld the contention of the assesseee and held that “meal maker” is to be charged to tax under Entry 44-A of
the Ist schedule to the Act. This order of the Tribunal was also accepted by the appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada in the assessee’s appeal pertaining to the another assessment year, vide the order dated 24-02-1994.
4. In view of the above circumstances, the Tribunal further observing that no revision was filed by the Revenue against the earlier order in TA.Nos.18 of 1987 and 498 of 1988 or against the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, dated 24-02-1997, held in favour of the assessee and allowed the appeal.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this revision. The Revision is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, no costs.
JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date:01-11-2012 kvr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in the revision under Section 22 (1) of the APGST Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Revenue
respondent-assessee
Goda Raghuram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
