REPLICA AGENCIES HYD Vs. STATE OF A P
LAWS(APH)-2001-10-51
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 03,2001

REPLICA AGENCIES, HYD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF A.P. VS. A. P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPN. [REFERRED TO]
GOOD YEAR INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF A. P. [REFERRED TO]
INDO NATIONAL LTD. VS. STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KOTHARI PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A. P. V. KARNATAKAM GOVINDAYYA SETTY AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH VS. SERVAL INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
BHUJI PRODUCTS V. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX OFFICER STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATEL RAMJIBHAI DANABHAI:M S PADVI: R G AJMERJ AND CO: BILLMOREGARDEVI MINING SYNDICATE P LTD [REFERRED TO]
GURUDEVDATTA VKSSS MARYADIT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]


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.