JUDGMENT
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. The question in this T.R.C. filed by the State is whether stoneware glazed pipes sold by the respondent come under entry 102 of the First Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act.
2. Though the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is quite unsatisfactory inasmuch as it has not referred to the tests laid down by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. G.S. Pai & Co. and tested the correctness of the respective view points in the light of the material gathered by the revisional authority, we are not inclined to interefere with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal merely followed its earlier decision in T.A. Nos. 798 of 1977, 63 and 66 of 1978 dated June 29, 1978. That decision was rendered prior to the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court in G.S. Pai & Company’s case . The Tribunal itself had taken the view in another case viz., T.A. No. 456 of 1980 dated January 31, 1981 that the question whether the hume pipes sold by the assessee are “sanitary fittings” or not has to be answered in the context of the use they were meant to be put to. It may also be mentioned that the view taken by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 798 of 1977 was virtually dissented from in T.A. No. 555 of 1987 (1991) 12 APSTJ 10.
4. The view expressed by the Supreme Court is that the expression “water supply and sanitary fittings” is one single expression and the words “water supply ……… fittings” must receive colour from the immediately following words “sanitary fittings”. It was pointed out by their Lordships that the G.I. pipes sold by the assessee would, fall within the description of “water supply and sanitary fittings” only if it could be shown that they were meant for use in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms and the burden of so doing would be on the Revenue. It was also observed that if the pipes were heavy and were intended to be laid underground as mains for carrying supply of water from one place to another, they would not fall within the expression “water supply and sanitary fittings”. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Commissioner for the purpose of determining whether, in the light of the interpretation placed on the words “water supply ………. fittings”, the G.I. pipes sold by the assessee could be said to be “water supply ………… fittings”.
It was observed as follows :
“Therefore, even for the purpose of determining whether G.I. pipes sold by the assessee are ‘water supply ………… fittings’, it would have to be found as to what is the purpose for which they were meant to be used and since the question has not been approached from this point of view, we think it desirable that the case be sent back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner…………..”.
5. In Indian Hume Pipe Company’s case , the question was whether R.C.C. or hume pipes can be regarded as “sanitary fittings”. The Supreme Court observed as follows :
“In these circumstances, therefore, we have to construe the expression ‘sanitary fittings’ in the popular sense of the term as it is used in our every day life. Thus construing, it would be manifest that there could be no question of use of R.C.C. or hume pipes, which are generally laid underground and are extremely heavy, for the purpose of use in lavatories, urinals or bath rooms, etc. By ‘sanitary fittings’ we only understand such pipes or materials as are used in lavatories, urinals or bath rooms of private houses or public buildings. Even where a hume pipe is used for carrying the secreted material from the commode to the septic tank that may be treated as sanitary fittings. In the instant case, as there was absolutely no material before the Sales Tax Officer to show that any of the hume pipes manufactured and sold by the respondent were meant for use in lavatories, urinals or bath rooms and, in fact, the material was used entirely the other way, the Sales Tax Officer was not at all justified in holding that they were sanitary fittings. Of course, we must make it clear that if at any time the material produced before the sales tax authorities establishes that in a given case, the hume pipes were meant for use in a bath room, lavatory, urinal, etc., then the notification of the Government would be attracted and the assessee must be liable to be taxed at the rate of 7 per cent.”
6. In the instant case, the respondent was subjected to tax on the turnover of stoneware glazed pipes at 4 per cent treating the same as general goods not included in any Schedule. The Deputy Commissioner revised the said assessment order in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 14(4), (4-C) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and held that the pipes sold by the dealer shall be treated as “sanitary and water fittings” within the meaning of entry 102 of First Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and thus subjected the turnover to tax at a higher rate of 6 per cent. In reply to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent submitted that SWG pipes manufactured were of low grade clay having 100M to 150M diameter and two feet length. The assessee contended that they were not meant for use as sanitary fittings, for wash basins, commodes, urinals and lavatories. He contended that these were meant for use for drainage pipes and rain water pipes by agriculturists. He also referred to the booklet published by Indian Standard Institute, according to which, these pipes are used for discharge of faecal and waste material, etc., coming from sanitary appliances like the commodes, urinals, wash basins, sinks, etc., and they are laid underground whereas sanitary fittings are fixed in rooms and intended to regulate waste and discharge to the drains. It is further contended that the pipes sold by them were heavy and used underground for discharge of drainage waste and rain water.
7. The contention of the respondent may or a may not be correct. As per the decision of the Supreme Court, the burden was on the department to find out the purpose for which the pipes were meant to be used or actually put to be used. Realising this legal position, the Deputy Commissioner had gathered some material from the assessing authorities, who are having jurisdiction over the dealers who bought the pipes from the respondent. The information gathered by him was only to the effect that the exemption was allowed to the said dealers as second sales of sanitaryware. From this, it is sought to be concluded that the pipes in question shall be treated as “water supply/sanitary fittings”. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that by gathering this material, which prima facie shows that the buyers as well as assessing authorities concerned treated them as “sanitary fittings”, the department must be deemed to have discharged the burden of proof. It is difficult to agree with this contention. From the mere fact that the exemption was granted on the pipes purchased from the respondent treating the sales as second sales in the hands of the buying dealers, it cannot be concluded that the pipes in question were meant to be used or put to use for the purposes mentioned by the Supreme Court in G.S. Pai & Company’s case . On the other hand, the contention of the respondent-assessee is that they were for use as underground pipes for discharging the drain water, etc. What exactly is the nature of the goods and whether they are suitable for one or the other purpose has not been discussed at all by the revisional authority. As we have already observed, the material gathered by the Deputy Commissioner is not at all sufficient to come to the conclusion that the pipes sold by the respondent were meant for use or actually used as “sanitary fittings” connecting lavatories, urinals, sinks and wash basins in the buildings. We are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal.
8. Tax revision case is therefore dismissed. No costs.