Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1998 (6) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 520, Revenue dated July 20, 1988 on the ground that they are electronic components. The assessing officer granted the exemption.   The Deputy Commissioner (CT), however, withdrew the concessional rate of tax on the ground that these goods did not constitute electronic goods and treated them as general goods and subjected to tax at 10 per cent on inter-State sales. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that three items are entitled for exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 520 dated July 20, 1988 for a part of the period and under G.O. Ms. No. 864 dated September 7, 1993 for the remaining part of the period. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has come up by wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g screen in the T.V. set. They are made of ferrites which is a ceramic iron oxide compound having ferro magnetic properties. The Tribunal also considered the functioning of other two items and held that they are electronic components within the meaning of paragraph 2 of G.O. Ms. No. 520, dated July 20, 1988. 3.. Learned counsel for the Revenue brought to our notice a judgment of this Court to which one of us (S.V. Maruthi, J.) was a member in Andhra Pradesh Computer Stationery Manufacturers Association v. State of A.P. [1999] 115 STC 173; (1998) 26 APSTJ 184 and submitted that the issue involved in this case is covered by the said judgment and therefore the matter should be left with the Government for reconsideration in the light of the....