A. NAGARAJU BROS., VISAKHAPATNAM versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 19-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A. NAGARAJU BROS., VISAKHAPATNAM 
v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
JULY 19, 1994 
B 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957: Section 5( 1). Schedule 
I-Entry 113 (as it stood before amendment in 1985}-'Plastic Sheets and 
Articles'-Suit cases made of plastic and fitted with steel bands, locks and 
C ancillaries of other materials-Held Plastic articles covered by Entry 113. 
The appellant was dealing in 'VIP' suit cases made or plastic and 
fitted with steel bands, locks and ancillaries made or other materials. Prior 
tO 1st July 1985, there was no entry dealing specifically with suit cases i.n 
Scheduled-I or the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. However, 
D relying on Entry 113 (As it stood before its amendment in July, 1985) or 
Schedule- I, which read 'Plastic Sheets and Articles' the appellant made a 
claim_ that the said suit cases were plastic articles within the meaning or 
. Entry 113 and therefore taxable only at the first point or sale; since the 
sales effected were second sales its turn-over-relating to assessment year 
E 1981-82 he submitted, they were not taxable. The Assessing Authority 
allowed the claim but the Deputy Commissioner revised the assessment 
order holding that the suit cases are not 'plastic articles' and are therefore 
liable to multi-point as general goods under section 5(1) or the Act. The 
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal and the 
F 
revision application tiled by appellant under section 22 was also dismissed 
by the High Court. The appellant preferred appeal in this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1. Sult cases are plastic articles. Admittedly the main raw 
G material which goes into manufacture or suit cases is plastic. Even in 
common parlance suit cases are understood to be plastic goods. It Is true 
that certain other materials are also used in manufacturing the said suit 
cases and it may also be that their value is substantial and in some cases 
more than the value or plastic. But, merely because the value or the steel 
H lnclnding the locks and other materials used in the suit cases is more than 
784 
AN. BROS. v. STATE OF AP. [JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 
785 
the value of plastic, they cannot be called articles made of steel or of such A 
other materials. (787-G-H; 788-E-F] 
2. There is no one single universal test in these matters. It is for this 
reason probably that the common parlance test or commercial usage test, 
as it is called, is treated as the more appropriate test, though not the only 
one. There may be cases, particularly in the case of new products, where 
this test may not be appropriate. In such cases, other tes!s like the test of 
predominance, either by weight or value or on some other basis may have 
to be applied. It is indeed not possible, nor desirable to lay down any hard 
B 
and fast rules of universal application. But so far as the goods concerned 
herein are concerned, these are undoubtedly plastic goods. Applying the C 
common parlance test and the test of usage in trade circles, these goods 
must be called 'plastic articles'. [788·C·D-E; A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
(NT) of 1989. 
Civil Appeal No. 2020 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.88 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in T.R.C. No. 317 of 1987. 
A. Subbha Rao for the appellant. 
C. Sitaramiah and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
B.P. JEEV AN REEDY, J. The question in this appeal is whether 
'V.l.P.' suit cases are plastic articles within the meaning of Entry 113 of F 
Schedule-I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The question 
arises with reference to the assessment year 1981-82. With effect from July 
1, 1985 a new entry, viz., Entry 163 was intrbduced in Schedule-I expressly 
taking in all kind of suit cases and simultaneously amending Entry 113. 
Prior to July 1, 1985, there was no entry dealing specifically with suit cases. 
Entry 113 read as follows : "Plastic sheets and articles" and the rate of tax G 
was 6%. In the year 1983, the rate of tax was increased to 9%. The 
amended Entry 113 (w.e.f. July 1, 1985) reads as follows: "plastic sheets 
and articles excluding those allied goods falling under any other item" 
whereas Entry 163 reads : "all kinds of suit cases, brief cases and vanity 
bags." 
H 
A 
B 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
The appellant is a dea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.