K.Bhaskaran, J. - (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent.
(2.) In all these writ petitions, what is sought is a declaration that "tilakam" and "Kajal" do not fall under entry No. 36 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, and, as such, are assessable only as general goods taxable at 4 per cent. In fact, the original assessment was treating the goods as general goods taxable at 4 per cent. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, applying the rationale behind the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Balaji General Stores v. Deputy Commissioner of Commnercial Taxes [1987] 65 STC 108, inasmuch as "tilakam" and "kajal" were not specifically included in entry No. 36, as it stood at the relevant time, they were taxable only as general goods. In that way, the original assessment made by the assessing authority was correct, and did not call for any revision.
(3.) Though we do not approve of the filing of the writ petition for such a declaration without taking the matter in appeal, as allowed by the statute, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the decision referred to above, we do not want the petitioner to be driven to the appellate authority at this distance of time, even assuming that the time-lag would not affect his right to file an appeal. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petitions giving the declaration as prayed for, quashing the revised assessment orders in the respective writ petitions.;