THE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN T.R.E.V.C.Nos.246 & 247 of 2008; 3, 4, 18 & 34 of 2009 and W.P.Nos.49 and 50 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) TREVC No.246 of 2008 is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in T.A.No.192 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008. TREVC Nos.247 of 2008; 3, 4, 18 and 34 of 2009 are filed against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in T.A.Nos.191, 193, 190, 189 and 194 of 2008 respectively. W.P.No.49 of 2009 is filed seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.10,68,489/-, for the assessment year 2002-03, till the disposal of TREVC No.246 of 2008. Likewise, W.P.No.50 of 2009 is filed seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.11,33,586/-, for the assessment year 2003-04, pending disposal of TREVC No.34 of 2009. Since all these Revision Cases and the Writ Petitions relate to the same petitioner, and as the issues raised therein are common, all these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. It would suffice for the purpose of disposal of this batch of cases, if the facts in TREVC No.246 of 2009 and W.P.No.49 of 2009 are noted. 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 Tata Motors. For the tax period 2002-03, the Assistant Commissioner, by his Order dated 27.02.2006, levied tax on the disputed turnover relating to second sales of spare parts and accessories, treating it as works contracts, on the ground that these parts were fitted into the vehicles by the petitioner at the time of repairs. Accordingly, tax at 8% was levied under Section 5-F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 04.04.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.192 of 2008. The disputed turnover, before the Tribunal, of Rs.1,52,64,129/- related to second sales of spare parts and accessories. According to the petitioner, it was not a case of works contract but formed two separate transactions one for sale of spare parts and the other for labour and service for which separate charges were collected. During the pendency of T.A.No.192 of 2008, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 09.02.2008 directing that tax, on supply of spare parts and oils during the course of servicing of the vehicles, should be levied treating them as works contracts prospectively following the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A.No.560 of 1999 dated 17.05.2006. Relying on the said G.O., the Tribunal allowed similar appeals, in T.A.Nos.98 to 101 of 2008, by its 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 appeal 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 by the Tribunal, this Court, in VIJAYA VASAVA MOTORS, ELURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (LTU), ELURU DIVISION, ELURU[1] had held that the Executive did not have the power to hold that the decision rendered by a Court was not binding or was to be of no effect till or from a date laid down by them and, following the said judgment, the Tribunal had dismissed T.A.No.192 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 orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present revisions are 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 appeals, in the TREVCs referred to hereinabove, the petitioner, among other grounds, would contend that sale of spare parts and the activity of fitting them into 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 the 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 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, in 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 regards the validity of G.O.Ms.No.144, we consider it appropriate to remand the appeals, in T.A.Nos.192, 191, 193, 190, 189 and 194 of 2008, to the Tribunal for its examination on merits. The orders passed, in T.A.Nos.192, 191, 193, 190, 189 and 194 of 2008, are set aside to the extent indicated above and the said appeals are remanded to the Tribunal which shall, after putting the petitioner on notice, and after giving them an opportunity of being heard, pass orders in accordance with law. TREVC Nos.246 and 247 of 2008 and TREVC Nos.3, 4, 18 and 34 of 2009 are allowed to the extent indicated above. As all the TREVCs have been finally disposed of, the cause in W.P.Nos.49 and 50 of 2009, seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of TREVC No.246 of 2008 and TREVC No.34 of 2009, do not survive and the writ petitions are liable to be, and are accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. As a result, TREVC Nos.246 and 247 of 2008 and TREVC Nos.3, 4, 18 and 34 of 2009 are allowed and W.P.Nos.49 and 50 of 2009 are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 23rd 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.)