M/S. Kap Electromech Private ... vs The State Of A.P. Hyd.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2282 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY T.R.E.V.C.No.11 of 2011 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

Heard Mr. B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for

Commercial Taxes representing the State and perused the record.

2. The instant Tax Revision Case has been filed assailing the

order dated 29.01.2007 in T.A.No.1764 of 2004 passed by the

learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

(for short "the Tribunal").

3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.01.2007 would

reveal that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the law laid

down by this High Court in the Case of M/s Gannon Dunkerly &

Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and the said Judgment

still holds good.

4. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has taken

into consideration Section 5 of the APGST Act, which, for ready

reference is being reproduced herein under:

"As is clear from the plain reading of the Section, this Section is the charging section for goods involved in execution of works contract. Provisos under the said Section refer to declared goods, goods specified in the fourth

(1996) 23 APSTJ 165

PSK,J & LNA,J TREVC.No.11 of 2011

schedule to the Act etc., but nowhere this section has made a provision for granting setoff of tax paid at the preceding point of sale. The non-obstante clause very clearly states that this tax shall be paid notwithstanding anything contained in Section 5 or Section 6 of the APGST Act. Though the fourth schedule has been mentioned under one of the provisos and explanations, the Sixth Schedule has not been so mentioned. It is therefore clear that the provisos and explanations under the Sixth Schedule of the Act cannot override anything contained in Section 5F of the Act. However, since sixth schedule contains a list of goods in respect of which, taxes are leviable under Section 5, the non-obstante clause of Section 5F covers the sixth schedule equally as Section 5".

4. In view of the same, we do not find any ambiguity, illegality

or irregularity committed by the Tribunal in reaching to the said

conclusion. We also find that the said finding of the Tribunal is

based upon the Judgment rendered by this High Court in the case

of M/s Gannon Dunkerly (Supra).

5. Therefore, we do not find any strong case made out calling

for interference to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The

Tax Revision Case accordingly stands dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J

________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 12.09.2023 Sai/pvt

PSK,J & LNA,J TREVC.No.11 of 2011

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

T.R.E.V.C.No.11 of 2011

Date: 12.09.2023 Sai/pvt