ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 20.12.1993 made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad in CCT’s Procs. No. LV(1)2042/1991, this Special Appeal is filed under Section 23(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 by the dealer.
2. Appellant was assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet, for the assessment year 1986-87 on a gross and net turnover of Rs.76, 39,610/- and Rs.27, 44,460/- respectively. The net turnover is relating to first sales of cable connectors on which the Assessing Authority levied tax treating the goods as falling under Entry No. 38 of the First Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity “the Act”). The appellant-dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that cable connectors come under ‘electronic’ goods and systems connected with electronics and that the benefit provided under G.O.Ms.721, Revenue, dated 1.7.1985 would apply and that the appellant is entitled for the reduced rate of tax at 4%. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that observing that though the assessee did not raise a plea before the Assessing Authority that cable connectors fall under electronic goods, but basing on two letters produced before him, one from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another from Industrial Advisor in the Ministry of Industry, Government of India, stating that goods manufactured by the assessee fall under the category of electronic components, the assessee is entitled for payment of tax at the reduced rate at 4% and holding so allowed the appeal. On a scrutiny of the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in the appeal, it was noticed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, that prima facie the view taken by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is illegal and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and as such invoking powers under Section 20(1) of the Act a revision was sought to be made.
3. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, while exercising powers under Section 20(1) of the Act, was of the view that though it cannot be disputed that the connector, which actually joints the two ends of two cables, becomes an integral part of the cable, the cable being the transmission line for electrons, connecting more than one equipment of the communication system, it is possible to treat the cable itself as a part of the electronic communication system, and that once the cable is treated as a part of the electronic communication system, the connector, which now becomes an integral part of the cable, can also be treated as part of the electronic communication system, and that considering the definition of ‘electronic item’, it is possible to hold that every equipment or part of an equipment, including the connecting system which forms part of the electronic system or through which electrons pass, should be treated as an electronic equipment or part thereof, but in extending this definition to all items, which are incidental thereto, one should be vary careful. He further observed that if simply because the cables are electronic and so the connecting elements are electronic, one concludes the containers or sheath in which they are placed are also electronic, then the interpretation can be extended to very far limits to include even the trenches, the rack in the trenches, the boxes etc., and bring them under the classification of electronic goods. Having viewed the matter from this aspect, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes came to the conclusion that the definition of the electronic item shall be restricted in view of the interpretation of the word ‘electronic’ and as such held that the equipment used in the process is not an electronic item which shall fall within the ambit of G.O.Ms. No. 721, dated 1.7.1985 and not liable to be taxed at the reduced rate at 4% and revised the assessment made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. It is this order, which is challenged in the present Special Appeal before this Court.
4. Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the provisions made under clause (II) (2) of G.O.Ms. No. 721, dated 1.7.1985, through which notification the term ‘electronic goods’ was defined, contends that the connectors fall under the definition of ‘electronic goods’ and therefore, the assessee is entitled for payment of tax at reduced rate at 4%. He also contends that the Electronic Commission of India prepared a list of electronic goods, under which the ‘connectors’ which actually joints the two ends of two cables, are to be treated as electronic items and thus the benefit available under G.O.Ms. No. 721, dated 1.7.1985 shall be extended to these items.
5. On the contrary, the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is justified in rejecting the plea of the appellant. He also submits that in G.O.Ms. No. 721, dated 1.7.1985, which is referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, in particular clause (ii) only 12 items are brought within the purview of electronic items and as such extended meaning cannot be given as held by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and stated that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court.
6. In order to appreciate these contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the Department, a glance to G.O.Ms. No. 721, Revenue, dated 1.7.1985 is necessary. Clause (II) (2) of G.O.Ms. No. 721, Revenue, dated 1.7.1985 reads as under:
“For the purpose of this notification, the term “Electronic goods” means electronic systems, instruments, appliances, apparatus, equipment operating on electronic principles and all types of electronic components, parts and materials and include-
(i) consumer electronics;
(ii) electronic test and measuring instruments;
(iii) medical electronic equipment;
(iv) electronic analytic instruments;
(v) electronic equipment/instruments for nuclear, Geo Scientific and other special application;
(vi) electronic process control equipment;
(vii) power electronic equipment;
(viii) electronic industrial automation and control equipment;.
(ix) electronic data processing systems and electronic office equipment;
(x) electronic broadcasting equipment;
(xi) electronic communication equipment; and
(xii) electronic aerospace and defence equipment.”
7. As indicated by us, from a reading of the above clause it would appear to us that not only the 12 items indicated in clause (II) (2) of G.O.Ms. No. 721, the electronic goods would include parts of material also. The Electronic Commission of India issued a list indicating certain items, which are to be treated as electronic goods. In the said list, which is placed before us, items 1 to 16 are referred. Item 1 refers to Consumer Electronics, item 2 refers to Electronic test and measuring instruments, etc., etc. We are concerned with item 11, which refers to Communication Equipment whereas item 13 refers to Electronic Components. Item 13.61 refers to Connectors (coaxial, Cylindrical, Rack & Panel, Printed Circuit etc.) Since the Electronic Commission, Government of India under item 13.61 has indicated that the connectors are to be treated as electronic components, there cannot be any difficulty for accepting that these connectors are to be treated as electronic goods, which shall be entitled to tax at 4% as envisaged under G.O.Ms. No. 721, dated 1.7.1985.
8. Though the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes that the list was prepared by the Electronic Commission of India only to grant concession under the Central Excise Act and thus such benefit cannot be extended to G.O.Ms. No. 721, it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention, inasmuch as, when clause (II) (2) of G.O.Ms. No. 721 categorically mentions that ‘electronic goods’ means electronic systems, instruments, appliances, apparatus, equipment operating on electronic principles and all types of electronic components, parts and material and include (i) Consumer Electronics; etc., as indicated in the foregoing paragraph of this order, this provision has to be treated as an inclusive provision and cannot be read as excluding provision thinking that the other components are not to be treated as electronic goods. In view of the language used in clause (II) (2) of G.O.Ms. No. 721, Revenue, dated 1.7.1985, we are of the view, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not justified in denying the benefit available under G.O.Ms. No. 721, to the appellant saying that the connectors are not liable to treated as electronic goods. Moreover, the material which is used to connect two cables is a conductor through which electrons are to be passed. It is not disputed that the conductor is not an electronic good. Even on this basis also the view taken by the Commissioner could be set at naught. That apart, since clause (II) (2) of G.O.Ms. No. 721 is an inclusive definition, which includes 12 items like consumer electronics etc., in our considered view, the order passed by the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of the Act is practically unsustainable.
9. The Special Appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the order impugned. No order as to costs.