THE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN T.R.E.V.C.No.234 of 2008 and W.P.No.33 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) TREVC No.234 of 2008 is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in T.A.No.186 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008. W.P.No.33 of 2009 is filed seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.7,68,415/- for the assessment year 2002-03 till the disposal of TREVC No.234 of 2008. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent carrying on business in automobiles, their parts and accessories, sales and service. They are the authorized dealers of M/s.Hyundai Motor Limited. For the tax period 2002-03, the Assistant Commissioner passed the assessment order on 12.02.2004. The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Panjagutta Division revised the assessment order dated 21.01.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in T.A.No.186 of 2008, disputing a turnover of Rs.92,50,499/- relating to second sales of spare parts and accessories. Both the assessing and the appellate authority had treated these sales of spare parts as works contracts on the ground that they were fitted into the vehicles by the petitioner at the time of repairs and tax at 8% was levied under Section 5-F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that the price of spare parts, and the charges for service and labour, were separately shown and collected, that it was not a case of a works contract and that it formed two separate transactions one for sale of spare parts and the other for labour and services. During the pendency of T.A.No.186 of 2008 the Government, following an earlier order of the Tribunal in T.A.No.560 of 1999 dated 17.05.2006, issued G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 09.02.2008 directing that tax should be levied on the supply of spare parts and oils, during the course of servicing of the vehicles, treating them as works contracts prospectively. Relying on the said G.O., the Tribunal allowed similar appeals, in T.A.Nos.98 to 101 of 2008, by order dated 23.06.2008. According to the petitioner, when T.A.No.186 of 2008 came up for hearing on 16.07.2008, the Tribunal, without hearing the matter on merits, had reserved it for orders in view of the earlier orders passed in T.A.Nos.98 to 101 of 2008. The petitioner would contend that, after the matter was reserved, this Court, in VIJAYA VASAVA MOTORS, ELURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (LTU), ELURU DIVISION, ELURU[1], had held that the Executive had no power to hold that the decision rendered by a Court was not binding or was of no effect till or from a date laid down by them and, following the said judgment, the Tribunal had dismissed T.A.No.186 of 2008 on 24.09.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that they were not given an opportunity to submit their arguments on merits. Aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present Revision is filed. Heard Sri G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In their appeal in TREVC No.234 of 2008 the petitioner, among other grounds, contends that sale of spare parts and the activity of fitting the same into the vehicles did not form part of the same transaction, that they did not constitute works contract, that they were two different transactions one for sale of spare parts and another for fixing them into vehicles for which separate charges were collected, that it was divisible into two contracts and was not an indivisible works contract. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Madras High Court in DEPUTY COMMR. (C.T.) vs. KARTIKEYA PRESS[2] and of this Court in EASTERN TYPEWRITER SERVICE vs. STATE OF A.P.[3]. The petitioner also contends that the Tribunal had dismissed T.A.No.560 of 1999 on 24.09.2008 relying on the judgment of this Court in Vijaya Vasava Motors1, that their counsel had no occasion to submit arguments on merits before the Tribunal and that the matter ought to be re-opened and their counsel permitted to submit his arguments on merits. It is evident from the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in T.A.No.186 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008, that the only ground on which the said appeal was dismissed was that this Court, in Vijaya Vasava Motors1, had held that, since the Government had no power to declare that the judgment of a Court would only operate from the date of the judgment, such portion of G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 10.02.2008, wherein it was so declared, must be held to be void and unenforceable. The Tribunal had also held that the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of tax, on the transaction falling in the categories described under points 3 and 4 of para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 09.02.2008, could not be entertained in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. It is thus amply clear that the petitioner’s appeal, in T.A.No.186 of 2008, was not examined on merits but was dismissed solely on the aforementioned ground. Under Section 21(1) (b) of the Act, any dealer objecting to an order passed, or proceeding recorded, by an Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, suo motu under sub-section (2) of Section 20, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal, under Section 21 of the Act, is both on issues of fact and law and, since the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the Act, the petitioner’s appeal ought also to have been examined on merits and not to have been dismissed on the sole ground that this Court, i n Vijaya Vasava Motors1, had declared that a portion of G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 09.02.2008 was void and unenforceable. Since the contentions urged by the petitioner, including whether the spare parts fitted during the course of repairs of a vehicle constituted an indivisible works contract or formed two separate transactions one for sale of spare parts and the other for labour and services, ought to have been examined by the Tribunal in the first instance, we see no reason to examine these issues in Revision Proceedings, more so, as a Revision lies to this Court, under Section 22 of the Act, only on a question of law. While upholding the finding of the Tribunal with regard the validity of G.O.Ms.No.144, we consider it appropriate to remand the appeal, in T.A.No.186 of 2008, to the Tribunal for its examination on merits. The order in T.A.No.186 of 2008 dated 24.9.2008 is set aside to the extent indicated above and the said appeal is remanded to the Tribunal which shall, after putting the petitioner on notice and after giving them an opportunity of being heard, pass orders afresh in accordance with law. TREVC No.234 of 2008 is allowed to the extent indicated above. As TREVC No.234 of 2008 has been finally disposed of, the cause in W.P.No.33 of 2009 does not survive and the said Writ Petition is liable to be, and is accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. As a result, TREVC No.234 of 2008 is allowed and W.P.No.33 of 2009 is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 23rd June, 2009 CVRK/GK THE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN T.R.E.V.C.No.234 of 2008 and W.P.No.33 of 2009 (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) June, 2009 CVRK/GK [1] (2008) Vol.47 APSTJ 71 (A.P.) [judgment dated 30.07.2008 in WP No.15548 of 2008] [2] (1982) Vol.51 S.T.C. 28 (Mad) [3] (1978) Vol.42 S.T.C. 18 (A.P.)