Decided on January 08,1998

Manorama Inc. Appellant


M.Ramakrishna, Chairman - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the orders of A.D.C. (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad in Appeal No. P/203/95 -96, dated 12.12.1996 whereby the appeal preferred against the order of final assessment made by the Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Sanathnagar Circle, Hyderabad for the assessment year 1994 -95 under the APGST Act passed in GI. No. 12293/1994 -95/APGST, dated 4.12.1995 determining gross and net turnovers at Rs. 2,07,844/ - and Rs. 56,050/ - respectively subjecting the net turnover to tax at the basic rate of 7 per cent was confirmed. The appellants M/s. Manorama Inc., are dealers in Video door phone and Introcular lenses at Ameerpet. They are on the rolls of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sanathnagar. They have filed monthly returns for the year 1994 -95, disclosing the following turnovers under the APGST w.e.f. 21.12.1994: By assessment order dated 4.12.1995 referred to above as regards the turnover of Rs. 56,050/ - relating to first sale of Introcular Lenses the contention that they are exempt from sales tax as per G.O. 1391, Revenue dated 24.12.85 was not accepted and accordingly in the Assessment orders, the assessing authority felt that they are taxable at 7 per cent as per Entry of First Schedule of the APGST Act, 57 even though in the show cause notice proposed to levy tax at 10 per cent + S.C., and accordingly taxed them. The disputed turnover in this appeal is Rs. 50,050/ - and the tax due thereon is Rs. 4,688/ -.
(2.) REITERATING the contentions urged before the lower authorities, it is submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that the Introcular lenses are altogether different from contact lenses and that they cannot be equated with the Introcular lenses to that of Contact Lenses and denying exemption provided vide G.O.Ms. No. 1391, dated 24.12.1985 is not justified. It is also his submission that the commodity "Opthalmic Lens" covered in G.O.Ms. No. 1391, covers all types of lenses which are used for correcting the visions of a person such as Introcular Lens but the Government has excluded only contact lenses from the exemption purview in the aforesaid G.O. Learned authorised representative has also submitted his written arguments wherein he has submitted a Technical note containing finer distinctions between contact lenses and Introcular lenses besides submitting a copy of Implantation Techniques from Ocular Survey News. So relying upon the same, it is contended by the learned AR that the introcular lenses and Contact Lenses are two different types under broad category of Opthalmic Lenses. Legislature has excluded specifically the Contact Lenses from the Opthalmic Lens categories. The Authorised Representative has also relied upon the Memo. No. 89129, dated 8.1.91 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department to the Commissioner to give suitable instructions to the assessing authorities clarifying the position of exemption granted on Opthalmic Lenses (excluding contact lenses) to avert treating of Opthalmic Lenses as different commercial commodity when fitted and sold in the frames (locally tax suffered).
(3.) ON the other hand, the Learned Addl. State Representative has relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.