Skip to content


Ram Chemical Industries Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Case Nos. 26 and 27 of 1978
Judge
Reported in[1983]54STC189(AP)
ActsAndhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act
AppellantRam Chemical Industries
RespondentState of Andhra Pradesh
Appellant AdvocateI. Venkatanarayana, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovernment Pleader for Commercial Taxes
Excerpt:
sales tax - classification - andhra pradesh general sales tax act - whether deodourised kerosene is kerosene within meaning of item 31 (d) of first schedule - court answered the question in affirmative that deodorized kerosene is kerosene for purpose of entry in item 31 (d). - .....27 of 1978 pertains to the assessment year 1975-76. the only question in these cases is : 'whether deodourised kerosene is kerosene within the meaning of item 31(d) of the first schedule to the andhra pradesh general sales tax act, or is it a different product or article ?' 2. the assessee purchases kerosene from the indian oil corporation and removes the odour and impurities therefrom by a process which includes passing compressed air for a period of four to six hours or longer. the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the process which is applied for removing the odour and impurities from the kerosene. it reads as follows : 'kerosene oil procured from indian oil corporation or other sources in taken in 600 liters capacity tank and compressed air is passed for a.....
Judgment:

Jeevan Reddy, J.

1. These two tax revision cases are preferred against a common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. T.R.C. No. 26 of 1978 pertains to the assessment year 1974-75 while T.R.C. No. 27 of 1978 pertains to the assessment year 1975-76. The only question in these cases is :

'Whether deodourised kerosene is kerosene within the meaning of item 31(d) of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, or is it a different product or article ?'

2. The assessee purchases kerosene from the Indian Oil Corporation and removes the odour and impurities therefrom by a process which includes passing compressed air for a period of four to six hours or longer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the process which is applied for removing the odour and impurities from the kerosene. It reads as follows :

'Kerosene oil procured from Indian Oil Corporation or other sources in taken in 600 liters capacity tank and compressed air is passed for a period of 4 to 6 hours or longer till the kerosene passes the stipulated standards and also till the characteristic smell is completely absent. Later, it is filtered to isolate all suspended particles to get a clear oil which is called DEODOURISED KEROSENE. This is filled into 210 liters capacity mild steel drums and forwarded to the customers.

Economy : While passing the compressed air and while the filtration through fuller's earth, there is a loss of 40 to 45 per cent of Kerosene. Thus for every 100 liters of kerosene taken the yield is 55 to 60 per cent. Therefore, the costs of deodourised kerosene oil only on raw material costs works out to Rs. 1.86 per litre. To this when the labour charges, fuller's earth cost, transport cost etc., is added our selling price is Rs. 3.95 per litre, keeping a margin of 20 per cent gross profit.'

3. The correctness of this process is not disputed by the department before us nor does the Tribunal's order say otherwise.

4. It is evident that even after deodurising kerosene remains the same. There is no organic or chemical change. All that happens is that the odour is taken out, as also the impurities from the kerosene, so that it can be used as a raw material for manufacturing liniments. (It appears that after deodourising kerosene, the assessee sells the same to Warner Hindustan who manufactures the liniments). The reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court, in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool : [1961]2SCR14 to hold that vanaspati (hydrogenated oil) is and continues to be groundnut oil, applies with equal force to the facts of this case. Indeed, in this case, there is not even any organic change. The only difference in the facts of that case and this case is this. The Supreme Court has said in that case that vanaspati can be out to all uses to which groundnut oil can be put to and similarly the groundnut oil too can be put to all those uses to which vanaspati can be put to. In this case, however, while deodourised kerosene can be put to all uses to which kerosene can be put to, the kerosene cannot be put to all uses to which deodourised kerosene can be put to. On an aggregate of all the facts, however, we are of the opinion that this sole differentiating circumstance is not adequate for us to come to a different conclusion. Again, the fact that commercially they are two different products does not make any difference because commercially speaking, groundnut oil too is different from vanaspati. If a person goes to a shop and asks for groundnut oil, no trader would give him vanaspati. Similarly a person asking for vanaspati would not be given groundnut oil. Applying the same analogy, merely because, commercially speaking, kerosene and deodourised kerosene are different, it would not make any difference for the purpose of the enquiry relevant herein.

5. The Tribunal, inter alia, relied upon the fact that the value of these two goods in different, to come to the conclusion that both are different goods. In our opinion, however, that cannot be a relevant fact because even in the case of groundnut oil and vanaspati, the values or prices do differ.

6. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that deodourised kerosene is kerosene for the purpose of entry in item 31(d) in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The revisions are partly allowed. The assessments already made shall be accordingly revised. Advocate's fee Rs. 200 in each.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //