2016 (12) TMI 1861 - SCH - VAT and Sales Tax

Rate of Tax - Manufacture and sale of Lizol (floor cleaner) Harpic (toilet cleaner) and Mortein mosquito repellents Classification - Entry 88 or Entry 20 to Schedule IV Interpretation of Statute - Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act 2005 - HELD THAT - The impugned judgment and order of the High Court need not not be interfered. Petition dismissed - The question of law that has been raised in these special leave petitions in case arises in future from a different judgment it shall be addressed to on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation; Non-interference with High Court judgment; Dismissal of special leave petitions; Addressing future raised legal question.

Delay Condonation:
The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of delay condonation in the case. The respondent's senior counsel highlighted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had granted relief in certain writ petitions and revisions back in 2012. However, the State did not challenge all the orders except a few. The counsel also pointed out that the assessee's stand had been accepted in subsequent assessment years. Considering these facts, the Court decided to condone the delay.

Non-Interference with High Court Judgment:
The Court then discussed the High Court's judgment and order. It was noted that due to the factual circumstances presented, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Consequently, the special leave petitions were dismissed based on this determination.

Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions:
The Supreme Court explicitly stated that in light of the factual matrix and the acceptance of the assessee's stand in subsequent assessment years, no interference was warranted with the High Court's decision. Therefore, the special leave petitions were dismissed accordingly.

Addressing Future Raised Legal Question:
Lastly, the Court made a significant observation regarding the legal question raised in the special leave petitions. It was mentioned that if the same question of law arises in the future from a different judgment, it would be addressed on its merits at that time. This statement indicates the Court's readiness to consider similar legal issues in the future based on different circumstances.

This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Court, including delay condonation, non-interference with the High Court judgment, dismissal of special leave petitions, and the approach towards addressing future legal questions.