M/S. Panduranga Engineering Corporation, Vijayawada vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The assessment order dated March 20, 2006, for the assessment year 2004-05, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Suryaraopet Circle, was set aside. The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by a previous common order of the Division Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This order, relying on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Bharat Vijay Mill Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, had held that water tanks are containers. Consequently, the petitioner's contention that syntax water containers fall within entry 19 and not entry 187 of the 1st schedule to the Act, and thus attract a 4% tax rate, was accepted. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute this position. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to set aside the assessment order.

Facts

The petitioner, a dealer in syntax water and storage tanks, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 20, 2006, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Suryaraopet Circle. The respondent authority levied tax at 12% on water storage tanks, classifying them under entry 187 of the 1st schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to set aside this assessment for the assessment year 2004-05. The petitioner relied on a previous common order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which in turn referred to a Karnataka High Court judgment holding water tanks as containers. The petitioner contended that their products should fall under entry 19, attracting a 4% tax rate.

Key Issues

1. Whether syntax water storage tanks, for the assessment year 2004-05, fall under entry 187 of the 1st schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, attracting a 12% tax rate, or under entry 19, attracting a 4% tax rate? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their syntax water storage tanks are essentially containers and should be classified under entry 19, not entry 187. They relied on a common order of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.920 and 940 of 2006, which allowed similar petitions by referring to the Karnataka High Court judgment in Bharat Vijay Mill Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, holding water tanks as containers. Revenue's Contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes did not dispute that the issue raised in the writ petition was already settled by the aforementioned common order.