JUDGEMENT
S.ANANDA REDDY, J. -
(1.)This Tax
Revision Case is filed by the dealer,
aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal in TA No.576 of 1993,
dated 14.7.1994 for the assessment year
1986-87. The dispute in this tax revision
case is "Whether the Xerox machine is to
be considered as duplicating machine, falling
under Entry-12 of the First Schedule or to
be treated as one falling under 'all kinds of
machinery' specified under Entry-83 of the
First Schedule?'.
(2.)The Petitioner - M/s. Replica
Agencies, is a dealer in Xerox machines and
their parts. During the assessment year
1986-87 the assessing authority subjected
the disputed turnover of Rs.6,73,6047- to tax
treating the Xerox machines and their parts
as 'machinery parts' failing under Entry 83
of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh
General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). The Deputy
Commissioner, however, revised the said
order and treated the Xerox machines as
duplicating machines, falling under Entry
12 of the First Schedule and subjected to
higher rate of tax. Aggrieved by the same,
the dealer carried the matter in appeal to the
Sales Tax. Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal
after considering the contentions of the dealer
as well as the Department affirmed the order
of the Deputy Commissioner (CT).
Therefore, the present tax revision case by
the dealer.
(3.)The learned counsel for the dealer
contended that the Xerox machines, with
which the Petitioner was dealing, cannot be
considered as duplicating machines as they
are not simple duplicators, but is equipped
with the capacity to enlarge as well as
contract the size of the documents that are
required to be copied. According to the
learned counsel, the Xerox machine is being
operated with electricity and therefore it
should be treated as one falling under
Entry 83 as part of all kinds of machinery
propelled or operated by electricity, diesel
etc. The learned counsel also contended
that the term duplicating machine was there
under Entry-12 from the beginning of the
Act, though the Xerox machines were not
available at that time when the said Entry
was introduced. Though the Xerox machines
are being traded in the market for the last so
many years, the legislature did not thought
it fit to incorporate as an item in Entry-12
and therefore it would be proper to treat it
as a machinery specified under Entry-83 of
the First Schedule. The learned counsel
also tried to distinguish the Xerox machines
from the duplicating machines, which are
confined only to take replica of whatsoever
put into the said machines. In view of the
variations in the copies that are being
obtained in the Xerox machines, the Xerox
machines could not be considered as
duplicating machines. Therefore, the
Tribunal as well as Deputy Commissioner
are in error in treating the Xerox machines
as one falling under Entry-12 of the First
Schedule. The learned counsel also
contended that assuming that the Xerox
machines falls under both Entry-12 as well
as Entry-83 of the First Schedule, then in
such case it should be considered under the
Entry where a lesser tax is being provided.
If so considered the Xerox machine has
to be taxed under Entry-83 instead of
Entry 12.
The learned counsel also advanced
another argument that even assuming that
there is any ambiguity with reference to
the Xerox machine, whether it fall under
Entry-12 or Entry 83, then the benefit of
doubt should be given to the dealer.
Therefore, the learned counsel contended
that in any case the Xerox machines are
to be treated as failing under Entry 83 and
not Entry 12 of the First Schedule. The
teamed counsel also relied upon State of
A.P. v. Karnatakam Govindayya Setty &
Sons, 55 STC 160; Indo National Ltd. vs.
State ofAndhra Pradesh, 64 STC 382, in
support of his contentions. The learned
counsel also distinguished a judgment of
the Gujarat High Court in Bhuji Products
v. State of Gujarat, 84 STC 328, which
was referred to and relied upon by the
Tribunal.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.