Tax classification of sun-glasses turns on amended notification wording, not merely their protective use, and exclusion prevailed.

Sun-glasses were held not to be "medical devices" for classification under Entry 28A(ii) of Schedule II to the Gujarat VAT Act because the governing notifications, as amended over time, confined the entry to medical equipment, devices and implants and later expressly excluded non-corrective goggles, sun-glasses and sun-glass spectacles. The earlier 2006 notification covering spectacles, correctives and protectives was superseded by the 2008 notification, and the 2013 amendment removed any residual doubt. Protective use alone could not control tax classification where the statutory notification scheme and legislative intent pointed to exclusion. The classification adopted by the Tribunal was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Fastrack brand sunglasses or sunglasses are "medical devices" within Entry 28A(ii) of Schedule II to the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. (ii) Whether, in view of the successive notifications issued under Entry 28A(ii), sunglasses could be brought within the notified category of "medical equipments, devices and implants".

Issue (i): Whether Fastrack brand sunglasses or sunglasses are "medical devices" within Entry 28A(ii) of Schedule II to the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The relevant notifications showed a change in legislative treatment. The 2006 notification included "spectacles, correctives and protectives" within the notified items, but the 2008 notification superseded it and confined the entry to "all types of medical equipment, devices and implants". The 2013 amendment further clarified that goggles, sun-glasses and spectacles of sun-glass which are not correctives stood excluded. On that basis, the protective character of sunglasses by itself did not make them medical devices. The nature of a product for tax classification had to be determined by the statutory notification and legislative intent, not merely by its protective use.

Conclusion: Sunglasses are not "medical devices" under Entry 28A(ii) and are not entitled to classification as such.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the successive notifications issued under Entry 28A(ii), sunglasses could be brought within the notified category of "medical equipments, devices and implants".

Analysis: The supersession of the 2006 notification by the 2008 notification indicated a deliberate exclusion of spectacles and protectives from the notified category. The later clarification in 2013 removed any remaining doubt by expressly excluding non-corrective sun-glasses. Accordingly, the Tribunal's reliance on the protective use of sunglasses could not override the amended notification scheme.

Conclusion: Sunglasses do not fall within the notified category under Entry 28A(ii).

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the Tribunal's classification was set aside, and the tax question was answered in favour of the Revenue against the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: For tax classification under a specific notified entry, the controlling factor is the statutory notification as amended from time to time and the legislative intent manifested by those amendments; a product cannot be treated as a medical device merely because it has a protective use when the applicable notification excludes it.

---