9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there are no justiciable grounds to take a different view there from, for us to sustain the order of assessment passed by the respondent. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders as passed by the respondent-authority cannot be sustained - Petition allowed. - W.P. Nos. 25670 and 25682 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2022 - Hon'ble Judges T. Vinod Kumar and Pulla Karthik, JJ. For the Appellant : Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy, Advocate For the Respondents : GP ORDER T. Vinod Kumar, J. 1. Since in these two Writ Petitions, a common issue is involved, as to, whether the goods sold by the petitioner, namely, Chlormint and Happydent, are to be classified as falling under Entry-88 or Item 117 of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent view for each assessment year, cannot be accepted, when particularly there is no change, either in the entry under consideration or change in the facts. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by placing reliance on the orders of the Tribunal in petitioner's own case in TA. Nos. 719 and 720 of 2009 for the period October, 2005 to March, 2006 and from April, 2006 to September, 2006, and also in TA. No. 226 and 227 of 2011 for the subsequent period from April, 2008 to September, 2008 and October 2008 to March, 2010, would contend that the Tribunal by considering the relevant entries under the Act being Entry-88 and Entry-117 of the IV-Schedule and also having regard to the licence issued to the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present writ petitions is no longer res integra and thus the assessment order passed by the respondent, contrary to the settled legal position, cannot be sustained. 10. Per contra, Sri. L. Venkateshwar Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that since the petitioner had not discharged the initial burden cast on it by establishing that the products sold by it, namely Chlormint and Happydent, are the products manufactured under the licence obtained from the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the authority is justified in revising the same by treating the goods sold by the petitioner as confectionary and liable to tax under V-Schedule of the Act. 11. Learned Special Standing Counsel would fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly Chloromint and Happydent, would have to be considered as medicines falling under Entry-88 of the IV Schedule of the Act. 16. Even the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad in petitioner's own case, for the earlier period of tax and for the subsequent tax period, as noted above, took a similar view after analyzing the provisions of Section 3(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the said order of the Tribunal has become final. 17. The said fact is not disputed by the learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 18. Having regard to the above, since the issue raised in the present Writ Petitions being similar to the issue which has been considered by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
