The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent : The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRLUSTICE T. VINOD KlJtrtAR AND THE HON'BIE SRT JUSTICE PULU KARTI.IIK T.R.C.No.G3 of 2OO3 ORDER: (pr nonbte Sn Justic T.Vind Kunar) This Tax Revision Case is filed by the Revenue und,)r Section 22(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short,.the Act), b:ing dissatisfied with the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Aldhra pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal), in Tax Appeal, yrit,T.A.No.504 of 2000 dt.11.09.2002.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this evision case is whether the respondent - assessee is entiued to lhe benefit of concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-state sales of 1;t lel tubes made against Form-D declaration issued by the Executive :ngineer, Zilla Parishad, Karnataka.

3. The respondent - assessee is a registered d€a er under the provisions of the Act on the rolls of the Commerc a Tax Officer, Ramgopalpet Circle, and is engaged in the manufacture , rf steel tubes. For the assessment year 1993-94 under the Act, th( respondent _ assessee had effected sales of steel tubes to the Executivr: -ngineer, Zilla Parishad, for using the said goods in ib various projects.

4. The said Executive Engineer, Zilla parishad, in rt spect of the purchases of steel tubes from the respondent _ assessee, 1,rd clairned l.or being charged with concessional rate of tax of 4olo subject k furnishing of 2 furm-D declaratbn. On tfle respondent - assessee effecting sales of steel tubes to the Decutive Engineer, Zilla Parbhad, being a purchaser has issued Form-D declaration to the respondent - assess@ in order to claim concessional rate of tax on ib sales.

5. By the order of assessment, the assessing authority afloured the benefit of concessional rate of tax of 4o/o in respect of sales made by tlrc respondent - assessee to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, lcrnataka, to a tune of turnover of Rs.19,83,368/-. However, revis'onal authority in exercise of revisional powers conferred on him under Section 2O(2) of the Act had disallowed the benefit of corrcessional rate of tax on such sa{es claiming that the order of assessment granting/assessing the turnover at concessional rate of tax to be prejudicial to the arterest of revenue.

6. The revisional authority by his order had held that the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, cannot be considered as Government, for it to be eligible to obtain and issue Form-D declaration to the respondent - assessee in order to claim concessional rate of tax; and that Zilla Paristud is an autonomous body and managed by group of persons elected by the people and it functions under the overall control of the State Government wittput being part of the Government.

7. The respondent - assessee feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rev'rsion had Rled an appeal under Section 21 of the Act before the Tribunal. "/ I I I I I i i i I 3

8. The Tribunal by taking note oi the fact that the terrn 'Government' is not defined either under the APGST Act or CST Act and by referring to Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and also the decisirn of the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh v/s. State of Punjalrr had held that Zilla Parishad also comes under Govemment. The Triburr: I further noted that in the Form-D declaration issued to the respondent -- rssessee, it has been mentioned as "to be u@ when making purchase:; 5y Government and name of the State is Kamabkd' and the said form i: signed by the Executive Engineer, Z.P.E. Division, Chikodi, which is a ilivision of Zilla Parishad Engineering Department, Government of Krrnataka, Bidar, Karnataka State, and held that the purchases are by the ti,rvernment only and as such. the respondent - assessee is entided to cla nr the benefit of concessional rate of tax on such goods.

9. The Tribunal, while arriving at the above conc u sion, had also made reference to the decision rendered by it in th(l case of M /s. Balmer Lawrie and Company v/s. State of Anclhra Pradesh2, wherein it is held that the responsibility lies on the dealelvho had issued Form-D declaration and even if there is impropriety, the r:ceiving dealer cannot be taken to task by subjecting to higher rate of ta)(. 'atn tsoz ssc4sg '2t npsr.J 6t 1

10. Though on beha{f of the petitior€r - revenue, it is contendec, that Zilla Parishad cannot be conskJercd as Government, it is to be not€d Zilla Parishad is a local self{overnment under the control of the Govemrnent. It is also pertinent to note that the revisional authority, while revishg the order of assessrnent, had lost sight of ttrc fact that the purchases though are rneant for use in a Zilla parishad project, but are made in the name of the Colernment of Karnataka by the concenred Executive Engineer of Zilla Parishad, Engineering Department of Karnataka State and thus, the purchases are to be treated as nrade by the Government itself, which is entitled to claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax in terms of Section 8(tXa) of the csT Act by issulng Form-D declaration,

11. Though the Tribunal had held that Zilta parishad is Government, and thus, entitled to be charged with concessional rate of tax, in view of the above conclusion aniwd at ty us above that the procurernent is by Engineering Department of Karnataka State, without delving into the issue as to whether the local body can be consklered as Government, in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, we confirm the order of the Tribunal by supplementing its reasoning as noted hereinabove.

12. For the aforesaid reason, the Tax Revision Case is devoid of merit and it is accbldingly disrnissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall :tand closed. No order as to costs. SiEI/- R.KARTHIKEYAN JOINT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To, l.ThesalesTaxAppellateTribunal,AndhraPradesh'H'lcerabad(Withrecords) 2. The Deputy Commissroner (CT) Punjagutta Division' Flyderabad' 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ramgopalpet Circle' Se:rrnderabad' 4. ffi CGto Special Government Pleader For Taxes' IOEU6+ t0ut] 5. Two CD CoPies DL/PSL A/ 'l_:r. 1i D;"l ?0?\ 'i:. HIGH COURT DATED:041O712025 ORDER TRC.No.63 of 2003 DISMISSING THE TRC. gd%L Xru,