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

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment order for the 2003-04 assessment year. The Court found that the issue raised in the present writ petition was indeed covered by the common order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.920 and 940 of 2006. This prior order had held that sintex water containers fall within entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act and not under entry 187. Consequently, the tax rate applicable should be 4%. The Court noted that this position was not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter has been authoritatively decided by a Division Bench of the High Court, subsequent similar matters should follow that precedent, especially when not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned assessment order.

Facts

The petitioner, a dealer in syntax water and storage tanks, challenged an assessment order dated 23.02.2005 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The officer levied tax at 12% on plastic water tanks, relying on Circular No.A1(1).1688/2003, which directed assessment of plastic articles at 12%. The petitioner's objections were rejected. For the prior year (2002-03), an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was dismissed, holding that sintex water tanks fell under entry 187 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to set aside the assessment order for the 2003-04 assessment year, arguing that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench order.

Key Issues

1. Whether plastic water tanks, specifically 'sintex water containers', are classifiable under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, attracting a 4% tax rate, or under entry 187, attracting a 12% tax rate. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their case was squarely covered by a common order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.920 and 940 of 2006. This order, it was contended, relied on a Karnataka High Court judgment in Bharat Vijay Mill Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which held that a water tank is a container. Therefore, sintex water containers should fall under entry 19, not entry 187, and be taxed at 4%. Revenue's Contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the issue was already settled by the aforementioned common order of the Division Bench.