Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2007 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 281 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues: Challenge to order passed in revision by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes without hearing the petitioner. Interpretation of whether 'catgut sutures' fall within Entry 208 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged an order passed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, alleging lack of opportunity to be heard. The court noted conflicting affidavits on this issue but decided not to delve into it further. The petitioner contended that even on merits, the revision order was unsustainable. 2. The main issue revolved around the classification of 'catgut sutures' under the sales tax law. These sutures are exclusively used for surgical purposes, closing wounds in surgeries. The court referred to the Encyclopedia Britannica, confirming the surgical nature of catgut sutures made from sheep intestines and absorbable in the human body. 3. Entry 208 of the First Schedule to the Act lists surgical goods subject to tax. The court interpreted this as an inclusive entry covering all surgical goods for taxation purposes. The Special Standing Counsel and the revisional authority wrongly limited this entry to specific items listed, excluding others. The court clarified that the entry encompasses all surgical goods, including those not explicitly mentioned but used solely for surgical purposes. 4. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Johnson & Johnson Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise to support its interpretation. It emphasized that items like surgical knives, not explicitly listed in Entry 208, are still considered surgical goods under the broader classification. 5. Given the merit in the petitioner's case and the clarity on the classification of 'catgut sutures' as surgical goods under Entry 208, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and affirmed that 'catgut sutures' fall within the definition of surgical goods. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|