In four concurrent Tax Revision cases, the High Court allowed the petitioner's challenge against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order classifying photocopiers as dupl icating machines. The proceedings were disposed of without substantive judicial reasoning.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDEREABIfEOF TELANGANA
FRIDAY,THE TWENry FIFTH DAY OF JULY rwo rHousAND AND rwerurv rrvE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
THE HoNouRABLE sRr rrrrHa'osrNG RAo NANDTK.NDA
TAX RE VIS ION CA SE Nos 115 113 114 a nd 115 OF 2008
TREV CNo. 1't5 0F 2008 :
Tax Revision case Under Section 22 (1) (see Rure 40 ) to revise the order dated 26-03-2008 in T-A.No. 553 0f 2006 0n the fire of the court of the sares Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner (T) , Abids Division, Hyderabad dated 20-06_2006 in R.R. No.25104_ 05/csr preferred against the order of the commerciar rax officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad dated 18_06_2002 in Assessment No. 33i2l99_00iCST
Between:
M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (presenfly known as Xerox lndia Ltd.,Hyderabad
AND
...PETITIONER
State of Andhra pradesh
...RESPONDENT
Counset for the petitioner: SRI BHASKAR REDDy VEM|REDDy
Counsel for the ResponUela!!f SWAROOP OOR|LLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX
l-
TAX REVIS IONCASENO:'113oF 2008
Tax Revisioncase Undersection22 (1) ( SeeRule 40 )to revise the order dated 26-03-2008in T.A. No 552 of 2006 on the file of the Courtof the Sales Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad preferred againstthe order ofthe Deputy Commissioner(T) ,Abids Division' Hyderabaddated 20-06-2006 in R R No 25104- OS/CSTpreferredagaanst the order of the CommercialTax Officer' Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabaddated 19-06-2002 in AssessmentNo 3312/99-00/CST
Between:
Ii4/s. Modi XeroxLtd.,Presently known as Xerox lndia Ltd,Hyderabad
..-PETITIONER
AND
State of AndhraPradesh
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for thePetitioner: SRI BHASKARREDDYVEMIREDDY
Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI SWAROOPOORILLA' spicier- GovERNMENTPLEADERFoR srATE TAx
TAX REVISION CASE NO: 114 OF 2008
Tax Revision CaseUnder Section22 (1) ( SeeRule 40 ) to revisethe order dated26-03-2003inT,A.No.554of2006onthefileoftheCclurtoftheSalesTax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabadpreferred againstthe order ofthe Deputy Commissioner(CT) ,AbidsDivision, Hyderabaddated'15-06-2006in R R No' 27I04-05/APGSTpreferredagainsttheorderoftheCommercialTaxOfficer' BasheerbaghCircle,Hyderabaddated2}.os.2oo2inASSeSSmentNo'3312/00-0,1/ APGST
Between:
M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., presenfly known as Xerox lndia Ltd., Hyderabad
AND
...PETITIONER
State of Andhra pradesh
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the petitioner: SRt BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counset for the Respond".ltillt SWAROOP OOR|LLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENiPT-EEOCN FOR STATE TAX
TAX REVISloN CASE N O: 11 60F 2008
Tax Revision Case rev se the order dated r. ;ffi;::';:i:,?r:Til:::il. i ::n: :::l :; the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy commissioner (cr) , Abids Division, Hyderabad dated 20-06-2006 in R.R. No 28l04-05/cST preferred against the order of the commerciar rax officer, ::.J**"nn Circre, Hyderabad dated 06_06_2002 in Assessment No. 3312/00_01/
Between:
M/s Xerox Modi Corp_ Ltd., presenfly known as Xerox lndia Ltd.,Hyderabad
ANO
...PETITIONER
State of Andhra pradesh
..,RESPONDENT
Counsel for the petitioner: SRI BHASKAR REDDy VEMIREDDY
Counsel for the Responae.{a-S!l SWAROOP OOR|LLA,
SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEIDER FOR STATE TAX
The Court made the following Common Order:
.: ./-.; .,: '.a.r/ )
THE HON'BLESRI JI'STICE P'SAMKOSHY AND THE rroN'BLEsRI JusTlcil'oens'xc RAo NANDTKoNDA TAX REVISIoNcASESNOs.115 113 It4 AND116 0F2008 bterHol1'btcsj'l'hLst'ceN6Lrs1llgR'ao llo,.d'ko,rdo) coMMONORDER:
This batchof Tax RevisionCases are frled by '-he petitioner challengingthe common order'dated26 'O3 '2008 ' in T'A'Nos'553' 552,554 and 555 2006 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad (for short' the STAT')'
2
PS(J&NNAJ rRa-115 2ooa&aaTcH
Machines' which in those days were calied as 'Cyclostyle Machines., it is stated that the legislature could not have lntended by any stretch of imagination to include Xerox Machines, under trntry 12 of the Andhra pradesh General SaJes Tax Act, 1957 (for short,.the ApcST Act, lgSZ). It is further stated that there is lot of difference tretween Duplicating Machine and Photocopier. Since Entry 38 of Schedule_l includes varl0us Electronic goods ald parts thereof, and photocopiers can be classilied only under entry 3g and Entry 12 therefore has no application. Alternatively, it is stated that .photocopiers, could, at best, be classified under Entry 3g-D of Schedure-I. It is not in dispute that a photocopier, is qualifies al Electronic equipment. It rvas further contended that the Tribunal has misconstrued and misdirected itself in concluding that after 3l.12.lggg, the photocopiers ceased to fall under the category of Electronic goods, entitled for concessional rates ignoring the fact that Entry 12 of Schedule-l was very much in existence even before 3l.I2.1ggg.
PSK,J&NNR,] rRa 11s2ooa&BATCH
../,.'
(2)lgg, dated12.07 '2000rejected the contention of the petitioner to treatthe XeroxMachinesas'Electronic goods'andcollectedtax at concessionalrates rn terms of G'O'Ms'No'252 'dated' 19'05' 1995 Aggrievedbythe and G.O.Ms.No.653dated 3l'O7 'lgg7 ' provisionalAssessmentOrderpassedby the AssessingAuthority' before theAPPellate DePutY the Petitioner PreferredaPPeals Divisionand alsohled Commissioner,Secunderabad W.P.No.15O52of 2001 before this Court challengingthe validityof the aforesaidMemo,dated12.07.2OOO'
4
PSI(J&NNAJ TRC 115 2ooa&BArcH
classified as 'Electronic Goods' in the iight of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of BpL Ltd v. State of A.p.l
'32Apsrl-1
5
: : r -;"? t'. > .r"4' ',1"./
RC 115-2008&BATCH
for theassessment years 1999-2000 and 2OOO-200 1 1eq'ing concessionalrate of tax on the turnover of Fax Machines'Xerox Machines,Stabilizers a-nd its spares'
6 It is the furthercase of petitionerthat whilethe matter stood thus,the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Diviston, Hyderabad,has proposedrevision of the assessmentorder passed by theCommercial Tax Offrcer' dated 19'O6' 2OO2fot the aforesaid assessment -vearsandissuedshow-causenotice'dated og -Og.2OO4arrd' 24'09 '2OO4respectively' The RevisionalAuthority proposed. totreat the Xerox machinesand its spares as goods falling underEntry12 of First Schedule to APGST Act taxable @l6okrefetring the Memo, dated13'O7'2000' Thereafter'the DeputyCommissioner(CT) has passed order confrrming the lery throughhis proceedings,dated 20'03'2006for the assessment year 1999-2000and on 15'06 2006 for the Assessment year 2000- 2o0lunderAPGSTACtrejectingthecontentionsraisedbythe petitioner. Itis further case of the petitionerthat basing on the certificatesissued by the expertsthat the goods in question are 'ElectronicGoods', the petitioner approached the learnedTribtinal'
i
6
P5(,l&NNRI TRC-11s-2008&8ATCH
The Tribunal after elaborate arguments has parfly allowed some of the appeals and partly dismissed some of the appeals frled by the petitioner declaring that the photo copiers along with their spares are to be classihed under Entry 12 to Schedule 1 of ApGST Act with effect from 01.O1.2000.
7, According to the petitioner, the Tribunal went wrong in observing that Entry 12 is a specific entry for photo copier though photo copiers were not in existence during the year 1958 vvhen Entry 12 was introduced in the Statue. It is also submitted that the Tribunal also went wrong in observing that Entry 3g does not cover photo copiers as the language of entry 3g is not exhaustive but is an incrusive entry. There is a lot of difference between Duplicating Machine and photo copier. The Tribunar railed to appreciate that the adoption of the list prepared by the Electronic commission of India by Memo, dated o1.09.19g9 is for convenience. It is further case of the petitioner that the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal in case of State of Maharastra v. Bradma of India Limitedz has no application to the present facts
'r+o stc ea3: tz'.- --.
@.@' .' "::':r'.i- ,/ ' ,'r:r:f'
7
P5K,I&NNR,J TBC-115-2008&BATaH
of thecase. Aggrievedby the orderpassed by the'Iribunal'the present TaxRevisionCaseswere filed by the petitioner'
g. Learnedcounsel for the petitionersubmitted that the petitioner isdealing q'ith the businessof manufactllrealdsale of electronicgoods, suchas Photo Copiers, (Xerox Machines)' Printers,FaxMachines Stabilizers'itsspare partsand accessories.He furthersubmitted thatthoughthe Xerox Machinesare'Electronicgoods"the CommercialTax Officer' BasheerbaghCircle,Hyderabad'ieviedtax @ 16ok treating that the Xerox Machinesand its spare partsfallingunder category of 'Duplicatingmachines'and directed the petitioner to pay tax under Entry12 of IScheduleto APGSTAct' 1957'He further submitted-thatagainst the order passed by the CommercialTax Ofhcer, thepetitioner preferred appeals videT'A'Nos'1615'1616' 1617 of 2OO1beforethe STAT, whereinthe STAT observed that
8
P5(,]&NNR,] TAC r1l-2ooa&aAlcH
upto 31.12.1999, the petitioner,s goods are to be treated as 'Electronic Goods, and accordingly, the appeals were allowed declaring that the photocopiers along with their spares are to be classified under Entry 12 to I Schedule of ApGST Act, 1957 q.ith effect from 01.01.2000. Insofar as T.A.Nos.554 and 555 of 2006 €rre concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the STAT went wrong in observing that Entry 3g does not cover photocopier ald he also contended that Entry 3g of I schedule includes various electronic goods and parts thereof. The photocopiers can be classified only under Entry 38 that Entry 12 has no application ald that the Xerox copying Machines cannot be equated with that of duplicating machine. He further argued that all the goods which function electronically are taxable only as Electronic goods under Entry 2g, irrespective of the fact that they are classifred under different entries in the schedule. In support his contentions, he placed relialce on the folloq.ing judgment:
l
9
PSK,J&NNRJ TRC 1152003&BATCH
{'
A.P AndAnother v'M/s'ConcaP 10. InState of Hyderabad3,wherein theHontrleBalanagar,
Capacitors,Balanagar,
SupremeCourt held as follows
"...19. Onccagain,thc issue cameup for considerationbeforethe sarne Court inIndiaExtruston vCommission of Commercial'laxes' A P- ' Hyderabad, '2OOl)124 STC 474 InIndia Extrusion'the Courtwas consideringtheitemofCableJoiningKitS'RelyingonG'o,Ms.\os.52oand 521 andtaking recourse to the list of electronic goods crcpared try Electroni.cCommission,the Hrgh Court held that it could be said to be electronicgoods and was subject to lem'atthe concesstonal rateof tax' The Revenueacceptedthe judgment and had not challenged and the said decision
3 Appeal (Civil) No. !+332 of 2007, dated l2-1O.2007
10
PS(,]&NAIRJ TRa-115_2008&BAICH
Parikh GramodyogSansthana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
.13. ELECTRICAL GOODS:
The taw Lexicon Uustice T.p.Mukherjee 4n Ed,I9a9 pg.SZ4) defines Electrical Goods as .such articles the use of which cannot be had except with the application Lf electrical eners/., It must be kept in mind that an electronic device can be an electrical device but an electrrcal device cannot be an electronic der.ice. ELECTRONIC GOODS:
Praddeshs, the Honble Supreme Court held thus:
"15 As observed earlier, we are in agreement uith the frnding of the Tribunal that the Xerox machine is nothing but a duplicating machine, where it is being used for obtairring copies of the original. There is no ambiguity and th Xerox machine rvould be considered as a duplicating machineqnly, falring under entry 12 of the First schedule_ Even assuming that the sait would fall under entry g3 also treating it as a machine, still
o Civil Appeal No.651 ot 2005, dated I t-08.2010 '2001 sCC Ontine Ap 86S
P5K,I&NNR,J TRa 1152003&BATCH
.-- M ., ,1,,, $/ '.', :.,.'.a .{ . ..?
1,L
entry12 being a specialentry' it prevailsover the general entr'/' i e ' entry 83. Therefore,in anvvierv of the matter'wedo notfrnd that -ierers any merit inthe contentionadvancedby the counselfor the dealer'
u rssa 1t1 nlo zo
7 Appeal (Civil) No.444 44s of 2001, dated 09 01 2001
72
PSKJ&NNRJ rRc 115_2008&BATCH
Machine of the appeilants therein has the facility of water level controlled delay programme. It has various prograrnmes which are controlled through microprocessor chips, in other words, what the said notification requires is that an item can be regarded as an electronic goods only if the functions which are required to be performed by that equipment or appliance are performed or controlled electronically by micro_processor. Admittedly, in the present case, the entire functioning of the washing machine is automatic. Data is fed into the machine and thereupon it is the micro processor which control and direct the carrying out of the various functions of the machine which results in the clothes being washed /in the desired manner.,
15.per contro, the learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that it is after perusing the entire material placed on record, the learned Tribunal had passed a reasoned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Learned counsel further contended that as there is no specifrc entry to cover the Xerox machine, in the ,Electronic Goods, the same has to be treated as ,Duplicating machine, as Xerox
ffi-# i+"*r d .rl:.:'
13 PS(,]&NNR,] TRC,115,2008&BATCH
machinesdo nothing else but duplicating the matter placed in it for extracoPles
whether theTribunalwas justified inclassifying the Photocopiersalongwith their spare parts underEntry12 of the ISchedule to the APGST Act'1957 and Fax Machinesand Voltage Stabilizers along with their spare parts classifiedunder Entry38 of the I Schedule to APGST Act, 1957from O1.O1'2OOOand taxable tax (ql6o/"?
LT.Forthesakeofconvenience,therelevantEntriesof Schedule12 ard Entry 38.A' and 38 'D' of the AndhraPradesh
GeneralSales Tax Act,1957are extracted below
| s1. | DescriPtionofGoods | PointofLevY | Rateo | fTax |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. 3a-A |
Computers, mainframes, personal, m1n1, laptopsofanalogand dicitalvaricticsincludingAutomaLic TeilerMachines,theirhardwareald oeriohcralstikemodem,keYboard' monitor,mouse,CPU. floPPiesofall sizes, catridgetaPedrivesCDROM drives,DATdrives,harddisks printerso dotmatrix,inkjetand laser,lineline-matrix,Scanners, muitimediakits,plotters,Computer consumables,includingDATtiPs, rinterribbons,printercatridgesand p catridge tapes and computer errts and kits, andtheir |
do- | 8Paise Rupee |
in the |
14
PSXJAI!NR,] IRr_1r5_2O03&sarcH
ACCESS orres
38-D Arhlio SEothSerpeCIe fiectrod entSeC hoodreS orhCI than firstAt the sale point ofin 8 Paise rn the
Rupee
this State
15 PSK,]&NNRJ 1RC,1152oo8&SATCH
-i
RevisionCases isalso rnrespectof whether tire PhotocoPY machinewotrldcomewithin Entry12 of Scheduie1 or the Andhra PradeshGeneralSales Tax Act' 1957or to be classihed under Entry38 of ScheduleI to it would APGSTP'ct' 1957 '
2C.Since thefunctionof the saidPhotocoPYmachine is and being "vorkedbasing onthe electronicmicroprocessor microchiPs,this Bench has nohesitationtohold that the photocopymachine would very well come within the meaningof electronicgoods ald the samewouldbe taxableunder Entry 38' Thoughthe functioningof the same is more or less is equal to that of a duplicatingmachine, the differencebetrveen duplicating machine andthe electronic photocopymachine can be madeout by the s'orkingmethodolory of the said machineald bv preceding paragraphs
"The Trlbunalalsowent wrong in obsen'ing thatenlry 38 does not .or".pftoto Copiersas the languageof entry 38 is exhaustivebut is ,r, irr.l.r"i..e e.riry- The Tribu;da-lso went wrongin observlngthat through Entry 38-D is a general entry with reference to Electronic items, it applies only to small Electronic goods of lesser value which can bc used once and whose repair is not consiclererl viable if thev
I
L6
P5KJ&NNAJ TAC_115 2008&BATCH
stop functioning. The observation of the Tribunal js not supporled by aly maLcrial -1-T^.^.?:..yr*"'iJ'..,ii,i! bur a prcsumprion. Admittedly photo Copiers would function o.,ty- o., the principles of trlectronics and is_i rl.* i""..riio.r-; ;;, hled of Electronics. Though the photo Copiers ar" "r"J io.',riirlg multiple prints of a master copy, it cannot be equated to a Oufiicating Machine. In dupiicating Machine reduction ;r;;;.;;;r.or.rhe print of the master copy is not possible whereas in the.nodem Xerox machines l1?^A1:1"":copy print ...t" ."p..a""Jaby contrasting or enrargement. F\rther in the Duplicating machines I "., Cv.to"ivl. copies of any document cannot be p.oari".a.--it. ..;;;,t;;i; typed stencit onty has to be first typed by cutring " "4";;ii;;:"ch can be used for making copiei, whereas i"-x.."* machines we can used any document irrespective "f i," .#'u"i colour lor taking - copies. Thus it shows that there is " l"1 li'aiif.r"nce between Duphcating Machine and photo C"pi". ifr". statement showing functional differences of Duplicating'-1.f._." and photo Copiers are annexed in the material p"p"." fo-, .."dy ."f....r"".,,
?3, On overall consideration of entire material placed and the judgments cited by the petitioner, this Bench is of the opinion that the said photocopy machine would come very well within the meaning of electronic goods and the same carinot be treated as a
M rsr.'
77
PSK,I&NNR,I TRC 115-2003&BATCll
i
duplicatingmachine for the purpose of taxingXerox machine has to be treatedas electronic goods and wouldcome under entry 38 of Schedule I.For the aforesaidreasons'the isstte' whichu'as framed isalsv,'ered in favour of the petitionersartd againstthe respondents.Resultantly, the Tax RevisionCases a're liableto be allowed.
Miscellaneouspetitions,if any, pendingin these cases shall
stand closed.
sD/-K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \ \ //TRUECOPY'/ ,l SECTION OFFICER
One FairCopy to the Hon'bleSri JusticeP SAM KOSHY (For His LordshiPsKind Perusal) One Fair Copyto tf," Hon'Oie-Sllustice t'tRRSING RAO NANDIKONDA (For His LordshiPsKind Perusal)
To
kul 3lr Vk
I'-it9.Li.r:'1{: ..*!*t-,!
J
HIGHCOURT
DATED:2510712025
L,.R COPY'fOt}E MARKI]L)
();i.r HE s14 r4r
$(
i i
29TIJEM
,l
* l)-,2t'
a,^.Sn416ritl(-::>---_---, ,,
COMMO NOIIDER
TAX REVISIONcASENOS:115113114 and1 16 0F2008
ALLOWING1'III] TAX RF]VISrcNCASESWITHOL]TCOSTS
.\a ruqlukq{,,
-,.4V
M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd. (Presently known as Xerox India Ltd.)
State of Andhra Pradesh
P. Sam Koshy
V. Singarenda Rao Nandikonda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
