M/s. Amalgamated Holdings Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh

What happened

The petitioner manufactures and markets Blended French Coffee and sells it under its own trade name and brand. For the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 it claimed exemption of secondary sales of blended coffee powder under section 5 read with entry 34A of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, of ₹60,50,283 and ₹1,24,38,133. The assessing authority taxed the turnover at 10% under section 5AA, computing tax of ₹2,60,712 and ₹7,02,476, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeals on 20 December 2004, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals by orders of 7 December 2009. The dealer argued that its sales were first sales, which section 5AA excludes, and that tax paid at the preceding point must be deducted. The State said the dealer sells under its own trade name and is within section 5AA, and the appellate authorities relied on Aditya Music v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that registration of the mark is immaterial.

Questions before the court

• Is a dealer who markets goods under its own trade mark liable to tax under section 5AA on its sales, and does it matter whether the mark is registered?

Why the court ruled this way

Section 5AA, as extracted by the Court, provides that a dealer holding the trade mark or patent who sells goods other than declared goods at any point other than the first point of sale is deemed the first seller in the State and is liable to tax, with credit for tax levied at the preceding point (paragraph 11). The Court followed a Division Bench of the High Court in Vicrocil Oil Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on 30 January 2026, which authoritatively held that a dealer who markets goods under a trade mark or brand name at a point of sale other than the first is liable under section 5AA whether the mark is registered or unregistered (paragraph 17). The Tribunal therefore committed no error in confirming the assessment (paragraph 18), and no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranted interference in revision (paragraph 19).

Controlling point

A dealer marketing goods under its own trade mark or brand beyond the first point of sale is liable under section 5AA, whether or not the mark is registered.

Order and next steps

The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the State and against the petitioner, and both tax revision cases (Nos. 216 and 217 of 2010) were dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Practical implications

A dealer selling goods under its own brand in Andhra Pradesh or Telangana for the period governed by the APGST Act should treat sales beyond the first point as taxable under section 5AA, taking credit for tax paid at the preceding point.

Limits of this ruling

• The ruling concerns the APGST Act, 1957 for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, which has been replaced by later laws, and it does not address the credit for preceding-point tax in detail.