BALAJI SURGICALS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order passed in the revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-the first respondent on 22 12-2006. This writ petition was entertained basically on the ground that the petitioner had claimed that the order in the revision was passed without hearing him. Counter-affidavit has been filed, in which it has been stared that the petitioner was given ample chance to be heard. Since there is an affidavit and counter-affidavit with regard to the controversy whether the petitioner had been given fair chance or not, we are not entering into that controversy. In this view of the matter we would have d'rected the petitioner to approach Appellate authority, where ail these questions could be addressed, but the petitioner submitted that it wouid serve no purpose to go before the Appellate authority, because even on meriis, ihe order passed in the revision cannot sustain.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for parties on merits.

(3.) The controversy relates to 'catgut sutures'. Whether 'catgut sutures' fall within Entry 208 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act") or they fall in the Seventh Schedule to the Act under the category of General Goods. It is nobody's case that 'catgut sutures' are used for any other purposes than surgical purposes. It is well known that these sutures are used for the purpose of closing the wounds. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is mentioned that 'catgut sutures' are made from sheep intestines and are absorbable in the body of human beings and therefore, they are used for closing the wounds. Hence, there is no doubt that 'catgut sutures' are used only for the purpose of closing the wounds in surgeries by the Surgeons.