Skip to content


M.A. Rahim Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 865 of 1958
Judge
Reported in[1960]11STC355(AP)
AppellantM.A. Rahim
RespondentDeputy Commercial Tax Officer
Appellant AdvocateC. Mallikarjuna Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThe Third Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5..........supreme court that although the colour of the cloth had changed by printing and processing, the cloth exported was the same as the cloth sold by the petitioners and they were therefore entitled to the exemption under the notification. it was argued before their lordships that 'when the quantity of cloth sold by the petitioners is printed, coloured or dyed, it gets transformed into some other material and therefore what is exported is,not the same cloth.' that argument was rejected as unsound. their lordships distinguished the case before them from the case of state of travancore-cochin and ors. v. shanmugka vilas cashew-nut factory and ors. [1954] s.c.r. 53, wherein it was held that 'where cashew-nuts were purchased, conditioned and processed for export abroad, the exported article is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bhimasankaram, J.

1. The petitioner-firm deals in ready-made clothes and shoes. In its return for the year 1957-58, it claimed exemption from sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 44,698-40 nP. relating to its sales of ready-made clothes. The exemption was based on the terms of G.O. Ms. No. 2328 (Revenue) dated 13th December, 1957. By that Government order, the Government of Andhra Pradesh exempted from the levy of sales tax all varieties of textiles manufactured by handloom, powerloom, or otherwise. That exemption was subsequently incorporated in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act by adding a fifth item to Schedule V which specifies exempted goods. The petitioner claimed that that exemption applied to ready-made clothes made out of textiles. The claim was rejected. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ against the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Lord Bazar, Circle I, Hyderabad, prohibiting him from levying sales tax on the above-mentioned turnover. It is contended for him that the words 'all varieties of textiles' include ready-made clothes. I am unable to agree with this contention. It seems to me plain that finished products made of cloth do not fall under the description of textiles. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. [1957] 8 S.T.C. 358. In that case, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued a notification exempting from the levy of sales tax the sales of cotton cloth or yarn manufactured in Uttar Pradesh on or after a specified date with a view to export such cloth or yarn outside the territories of India. The petitioners before the Supreme Court sold cotton cloth manufactured by them to their constituents who thereafter dyed and printed such cloth with a hand-made apparatus and exported it overseas as hand-printed cloth. The question before the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to exemption under the notification. It was held by the Supreme Court that although the colour of the cloth had changed by printing and processing, the cloth exported was the same as the cloth sold by the petitioners and they were therefore entitled to the exemption under the notification. It was argued before their Lordships that 'when the quantity of cloth sold by the petitioners is printed, coloured or dyed, it gets transformed into some other material and therefore what is exported is,not the same cloth.' That argument was rejected as unsound. Their Lordships distinguished the case before them from the case of State of Travancore-Cochin and Ors. v. Shanmugka Vilas Cashew-nut Factory and Ors. [1954] S.C.R. 53, wherein it was held that 'where cashew-nuts were purchased, conditioned and processed for export abroad, the exported article is not the same as the one purchased and therefore the exemption under Article 386 would not apply.' Their Lordships then stated that there was. a 'vast difference between prepared cashew-nuts and printed cloth.' In my opinion, this case is near the casein State of Travancore-Cochin and Ors. v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-nut Factory [1954] S.C.R. 53 than the case in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. [1957] 8 S.T.C. 358. When a cloth is made into a shirt or a pyjama it would no longer be proper to describe it as mere cloth. It has assumed a new character. Such finished garments are clothes and no longer cloth.

2. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.


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