KARKHANA ZINDA TILISMATH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the revisional orders of Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), O/o the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in CCTs Ref.No.L.III(1)/825/2003 -1, dated 21 -12 -2004. The appellant disputed rate of tax on a turnover of Rs. 1,05,36,603/ -. The appellant is M/s. Karkhana Zinda Tilismath, Amberpet, Hyderabad. It is on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Vidyanagar Circle, Hyderabad. The Assessing Authority passed final assessment order for the assessment year 1999 -2000 by proceedings dated 28 -09 -2000 under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957. Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, the ADC by his order dated 22 -01 -2001 allowed the appeal.

(2.) THE Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by virtue of powers conferred under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act, having observed that the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, issued pre -revision show cause notice calling for the objections of the assessee proposing to restore the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The assessee filed its objections. The objections, however, were rejected and the proposed revision was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred before this Tribunal.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appreciation of the Commercial Tax Officer as well as the Revisional Authority that Farooky Powder dealt by the appellant would fall under exclusion clause of Entry 37 of the First Schedule to levy tax at 20%. It is argued that 20% is leviable on cosmetic powders but not the powder manufactured by the appellant since it is certified to be medicinal product by the Unani Board and the same was also certified to be medicinal product to be Unani Medicine by the Central Excise Authorities. It is argued that the ingredients of the powder manufactured by the appellant are meant for treating the gums of the teeth and other tooth ailments. The powder is not meant for beautification of the teeth or cleaning the teeth but it is mainly meant for cure of tooth/mouth ailment. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant on the decision rendered by this Tribunal in between M/s. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in : (2008) 47 APSTJ 1.