High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the order of assessment daled- 14.02.2015 is equally illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and accordingly set-aside the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO:9902 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order of assessment dated: 14.02.2015, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, REP. FOR SRI VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR.:} Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.CHAITANYA KIRAN, l\ iP, REP. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. (iP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 9853 OF 2013 Between: M/s. S.S.Associates, rep. by its Proprietor, Smt.Sar; nita Waghray, W/o Sanjay Waghray, aged 44 Years, Rl"/o. Hyderabad AND The Commercial Tax Officer, M.J Market Circle, Hyderatr rd ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the t iigh Court may be pleased to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other apprr; rriate writ declaring the order of assessment dated 20.03.2013 passed by the iespondent, viz. the Commercial Tax Officer, M.J.Market Circle, Hyderabad, ir his AO 18833 TIN No.28140155810 running counter to c.O.Ms.No.'t615, dat,:d 31.08.2005 and Advance Ruling Authority dated 22.05.2009 in the petitioners own case is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside he same and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem f t and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(WP MP. NO: 12276OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order of assessment dated :l().03.201 3, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass such other order or or'( ers as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of t 1 ? case and in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, RE r. FOR SRI VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR.Ii Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.CHAITANYA KIRAN, AGP, REP. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 12395 OF 2013 Between: M/s. Globe Surgicals, 3-6-36112311, First Floor, Street No.20, Opp. Oil Seed Colony Park, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-S00 029 rep. by its Proprietor, B.Mohan Reddy AND 1 2 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circle, Abids Division, Hyderabad The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gowliguda Circle, Abids Division, Hyderabad The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govemmeht of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh dated 09.04.2013 in CCTs Ref. Alll(1)/16112012 as illegal and vitiated by non-application of mind and further declare the Order of Assessment dated 12.O4.2013 is equally illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside the same. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 15304 oF 2013) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order of Assessment dated 12.04.2013, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, REP. FOR SRI VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR.S Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.CHAITANYA KIRAN, AGP, REP. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I(OSHY AI\D THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P Nos.7458 OF 2015 9853 & 12395 0F ;L[3 COMMON ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Kosht Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leanr:d counsel representing Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned cr rnsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, leam: 1 Assistant Govemment Pleader representing Mr- Swaroop Oor illa, Ieamed Special Govemment Pleader for the State 'fax for tht: respondents' Perused the record.

2. The question of law in all these three writ petiti'rns preferred by the assessee being same, we intend to decide t irem by this common order.

3. The question of [aw that was put for con-'i' leration was whether the product which is stated by the petitiont:r s herein i'e', orthopedic or fracture appliances and artificial joinls would fall under Entry 2 ol Schedule I ofthe Andhra Pradesh r/ \T Act, now the Telangana VAT Act, under the entry "orthopedir or fractures appliances and artificial joints/implants used by handicapped persons". .- \\ 2

4. The reliance by the petitioners w€ls on G.O.Ms.No.16l5 dated 31.08.2005 which introduced certain specific items which would fatl under Schedule I in Annexure I of the said notification.

5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel representing both the parties contended that the same issue recently came up for consideration in W.P.No.207l6 of 2008, decided on

25.09.2025 and in paragraphs 15 to 19, it was held as under: 1 5. So far as reference made by the leamed Assistant Government Pleader representing leamed Special Government Pleader to Entry 1 1 1 in Schedule lV is concerned which again for ready reference is reflected hereinunder:

111. Medical equipments / devises and implants. 16. A plain reading of the aforementioned material clearly indicates that the notification has a special purpose, under which each of the relevant Entries falls. With respect to Entry 2 in Schedule l, a reiding of the Entry alongside G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005, shows lhat the government intended to exempt the applicability of VAT on products used by orthopedic surgeons as is reflected in the aforementioned G.O.Ms., dated 31.08.2025, for the treatment of handicapped and disabled individuals. lt was through this notification G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005 that the government clarified ard limited the scope of exemption under Schedule I under Entry 2 to produc{s reflected in the aforementioned G.O.Ms., dated 31.08.2025 t: E:-_ (t I \ 3

17. Plain reading of Entry 111 of Schedule lv would reveal that the said Entry was in respect of tt ledical Equipments, devises and implants which are tt:;ed for treatment other than the treatment rendered rll)on an o(hopedic patients and where the items ment ( 1ed in Entry 2 in Schedule I is used for treatment.

18. lt was also brought to the attention )f this Bench that the govemment, through a subs -'quent notification dated 19.03.2013, rescinded G.C.,tls.No. 1615, dated 31.08.2005. Following this, the pe:itioner began paying the applicable tax, which further ! lpports their claim that, until the notification dated 19.C.).2013 rescinding G.O.Ms.No.'1615 came into effr:r 't, the products in question traded by the petitioners fel under the exempted category under Section 7 of the /\ rt. This also strengthens the petitioner's case, indicalirrg that until then, Entry 2 of Schedule I and Entry 'l 1 1 of Schedule IV were concurrently in effect and in f )rce. lt is not the case that the insertion of Entry ' 11 in Schedule lV (effective from 01,07.2006) had n any way, amended, repealed, or nullified Entry 2 of Schedule I or G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.200:i. 19. For all the aforesaid facts and circumst,: ces of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ petiti)n and hold that the produc{s traded by the petitiont:t which falls under HSN Code No.9021.10 and 9021.31 which fall under Entry 2 of Schedule I and not unde' Entry 111 of Schedule lV and to the aforesaid exl€nt, assessment order, dated 30.08.2008, il not sustainable and the same deserves to be ;rnd is accordingly set aside with consequence to follo'a

6. Accordingly, the leamed counsel appearing r I either side submits that the issue involved in the instant three vrit petitions 4 squarely stands covered by the aforesaid decision of this very Bench.

7. In view of the same, the present three writ petitions also stands allowed in terms of the order passed by this Bench in W.P.No.20716 of 2008. Interim orders, if any, as a consequence, also stands set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. 8, The leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since there was an interim order of paym ent of l2.5Yo of tax, subject to scrutiny and ascertaining whether there is any adjustment to be made from any outstanding amount payable to the petitioners, if any, refund of payment is made out. Let the amount be refunded to the petitioners forthwith within a period of 60 S. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness _The H.on',bre SRTAPARESH KUMAR Sineijn" cr,ieiiuJtiJe on flris Thursday, the Sixth Day of NovemOe., iwo tn"tisiirA f*"r,Oi Fiirir. ""A //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. JAYASREE SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Commissioner Hyderabad overnment of Telangana, 2. The Commercial Tax Officer (audit), Hyderguda Circle, Abids Division, of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. I

3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circte, Abids Division, Hyderabad 4. The Commercial Tax Officer, M.J Market Circle, Hyderabad. 5' The Deputv commerciar rax officer, Gowriguda circre, Abids Division, Hyderabad'

6. The Secretary. Revenue Department, Gorrernment of Telangana, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

7. One CC to SRI VTVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR.S , Advocate [OPUCI _l

8. Two CCs toSRl SWAROOP OOR|LLA, SPL. cp F(rR STATE TAX. Hioh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OU!

9. The Spl. Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax Officer ,ludit. 10.Two CD Copies I BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED: 06t11t2025 I I q o ) ( 2$:ir;i XEI t L )Fc., ^ ..' --:,. .--- >" \ I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.74S8 of 2015,9853 & 12395 ot 2:013 ALLOWING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WTHOUT COSTS ./ ,N^