Skip to content


Konda Venkataramanamurthy and Sons Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Case No. 83 of 1966
Judge
Reported in[1969]24STC428(AP)
AppellantKonda Venkataramanamurthy and Sons
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Appellant AdvocateK.B. Krishnamurthi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePrincipal Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - but the assessing authority refused to give exemption as they were dealers in other commodities as well and further the business was not carried on by a single person but by the joint family firm. the assessee was unsuccessful in his appeal against the order of the assessing authority. evidently, if any one of the above conditions is not satisfied, no benefit under the notification can be claimed. if he deals in other commodities as well he is manifestly out of the purview of the notification. as the petitioners are dealers in other commodities as well, and they do not deal exclusively in the oil produced from the ghanis, they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification......of the tribunal on both the grounds. he contends that so far as oil is concerned, the petitioners deal exclusively in the oil produced by the oil ghanis and no other oil is sold by them and hence they are entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. his contention is that having regard to the tenor, purport and language of the notification, it will be sufficient, if the oil sold is the oil produced from the hand ghani, without employing electricity or any other power at any stage of the conversion of the seed into oil. it is immaterial whether or not the person selling such oil is a dealer in other commodities. so long as in relation to the oil sold he is exclusively a dealer in oil from the ghanis or hand presses, he is entitled to the benefit of the exemption warranted by.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N. Kumarayya, Ag. C.J.

1. This tax revision petition directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 16th April, 1966, raises a question as to the scope and extent of the benefit conferred by the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1091, Revenue, dated 10th June, 1957.

2. The petitioners constituting a Hindu joint family firm own oil ghanis or hand oil presses and produce and deal in oil. They also deal in rice, paddy and tamarind. They claimed exemption on the purchase of castor seed and sale of castor oil and castor cakes as they own or have interest in the two oil ghanis, wherein the oil is produced without employing electricity or any other power. But the assessing authority refused to give exemption as they were dealers in other commodities as well and further the business was not carried on by a single person but by the joint family firm. The assessee was unsuccessful in his appeal against the order of the assessing authority. In the further appeal the Appellate Tribunal also on the same ground refused to give them the benefit of the notification and exempt them from payment of tax on their dealings in oil etc. That is why they have come to this court.

3. Learned counsel Mr. K.B. Krishnamurthi calls in question the decision of the Tribunal on both the grounds. He contends that so far as oil is concerned, the petitioners deal exclusively in the oil produced by the oil ghanis and no other oil is sold by them and hence they are entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. His contention is that having regard to the tenor, purport and language of the notification, it will be sufficient, if the oil sold is the oil produced from the hand ghani, without employing electricity or any other power at any stage of the conversion of the seed into oil. It is immaterial whether or not the person selling such oil is a dealer in other commodities. So long as in relation to the oil sold he is exclusively a dealer in oil from the ghanis or hand presses, he is entitled to the benefit of the exemption warranted by the notification.

4. This contention was repelled by the Appellate Tribunal on the language and intendment of the notification. Having regard to the tenor of the notification, we are unable to hold that the Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in this behalf. The notification lays stress upon the dealings being exclusively confined to the products of such ghanis or presses. Only such person or persons as have interest or ownership in the ghanis where oil is produced without employing electricity or any power at any stage of the conversion of the seed into oil and deal exclusively in the produce of such ghanis which they own are entitled to exemption. Evidently, if any one of the above conditions is not satisfied, no benefit under the notification can be claimed. As already noticed, it is necessary that the dealer should deal exclusively in the produce of such ghanis. If he deals in other commodities as well he is manifestly out of the purview of the notification. As the petitioners are dealers in other commodities as well, and they do not deal exclusively in the oil produced from the ghanis, they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The same view was taken by us in T.R.Cs. Nos. 30 and 31 of 1964 disposed of on 10th June, 1969.

5. As this T.R.C. fails on this ground, the other question, whether the petitioner-firm is included in the definition of 'person', need not be considered at all.

6. This tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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