Strict exemption conditions under sales tax law fail where goods are listed but no additional excise duty is actually levied.

Exemption from sales tax for HDPE woven fabrics under item 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was available only if the goods fell within the relevant schedule entries under the Additional Duties of Excise Act and were in fact subjected to additional excise duty. The court held that mere classification as man-made fabric was insufficient where no actual levy of additional duty existed, and a nil rate could not satisfy the statutory condition. Applying strict construction of exemption provisions, the disputed turnover was held not exempt. The Tribunal's contrary view was legally unsustainable, so the revisional orders were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed turnover relating to the sale of HDPE woven fabrics was entitled to exemption from sales tax under item 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. (ii) Whether the State Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals by setting aside the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed turnover relating to the sale of HDPE woven fabrics was entitled to exemption from sales tax under item 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The exemption under item 5 applied only when the goods were covered by the relevant heads and sub-heads in the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and were also goods on which additional duties of excise were actually levied. HDPE woven fabrics may fall within the description of man-made fabrics, but the record showed no actual levy of additional duty on such goods. The Explanation to item 5 could not be read so as to treat a mere nil rate as sufficient, because that would render the exclusionary part of the Explanation ineffective. Exemption provisions had to be construed strictly and all statutory conditions had to be satisfied.

Conclusion: The disputed turnover relating to the sale of HDPE woven fabrics was not entitled to exemption from tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals by setting aside the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction under Section 22(1) could be exercised where the Tribunal had decided a question of law erroneously. Since the Tribunal had erred in treating the goods as exempt despite the absence of actual levy of additional duty, its conclusion on the question of taxability was legally unsustainable. The revisional interference was therefore warranted.

Conclusion: The State Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeals and in setting aside the revisional orders.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded, the Tribunal's orders were annulled, and the tax demands restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption that depends upon goods being included in a specified schedule and also being subject to actual levy of additional excise duty is not available where only inclusion exists and no such duty is in fact levied; exemption conditions in a taxing statute must be satisfied strictly and literally.

---