AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AP VAT Act, 2005') as illegal and consequently pass orders which are deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Sl. No. Writ Petition No. Assessment period Date of Assessment Order Tax levied (in Rs.) Equipment Remarks/ Note 1 13540/2017 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2016 30.03.2017 7,28,501 Hospital beds, OT lights, bedside cabinets 2 13553/2017 September 2010 To December 2012 30.03.2015 13,49,719 - do - 3 15238/2017 2010-11 31.03.2015 4,29,958 - do - 4 15244/2017 2009-10 28.03.2014 2,71,537 - do - 5 15580/2017 2012-13 31.03.2016 2,15,422 - do - 6 17410/2017 2011-12 09.10.2015 3,04,665 - do - 7 35385/2017 01.08.2006 To 30.09.2008 27.12.2008 10,44,917 -do- Assessment order was challenged in appeal which was allowed. The Department preferred revision before R2 and allowed. The same was challenged in WP.No.2802/2010. As per the directions of HC, R2 again passed fresh revision order. 8 21450/2020 2013-14 28.03.2017 1,50,955 -do- &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laji Varma and Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes representing the respondents. 4. While reiterating the petition averments, Sri Balaji Varma would argue that the equipment sold by the petitioner to various hospitals is not a mere hospital furniture, but the said equipment is specifically designed for use in either diagnosis or treatment of the patients in the hospitals and therefore, they squarely fall within the groove of 'medical equipments/devices and implants' as narrated in Entry 111 of Schedule IV and hence exigible to tax @ 5% but not 14.5% as sought to be levied under Schedule V of the AP VAT Act, 2005 by the revenue. He placed reliance on Imperial Surgico Industries Lucknow v. Commissioner of S.T., U.P. 1968 SCC Online All 211 = (1969) 23 STC 201, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Associated Dental & Medical Supply Co. 1975 SCC Online Bom 195 = (1976) 37 STC 336, to bolster his case. 5. Per contra, while reiterating the counter averments learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would argue that the equipment like hospital beds, racks, lockers, operation theatre lights etc. are used neither for diagnostic nor treatment pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....slature." In A.V.Fernandez v. State of Kerala's MANU/SC/0093/1957 = AIR 1957 SC 657 case, the Apex Court elucidated the interpretation of fiscal statutes thus: "29. It is no doubt true that in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the Revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter." In Hansraj and sons v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 (6) SCC 227 = MANU/SC/0589/2002 case, the Apex Court referring to its earlier decisions, delineated the method of interpretation of tax laws and the instances when benefit of doubt should be given to the tax payer thus: "30. A similar view was taken in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad v. Ellis Bridg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which governs the rest of the words. In New Health New Zealand Incorporated v. South Taranaki District Council and Anor 's MANU/NZSC/0046/2018 = [2018] NZSC 59 case, the Supreme Court of Newzealand happened to discuss the term 'medical treatment'. The facts were that the local municipal councils of Patea and Waverley undertook fluoridation of water supplied to the public by mixing two compounds viz., Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA) and Sodium Silicofluoride (SSF), to raise the level of fluoride content in the water obviously to prevent a tooth decay. The said act was challenged by the appellant New Health New Zealand Incorporated on the plea that the two compounds mixed in the water by the councils are medicines in terms of the Medicines Act, 1981 and while drinking the water the public were ingesting the medicines without their consent and it amounts to forcible medical treatment against the will of the citizens and fell foul of Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Then one of the questions arose before the Supreme Court was whether fluoridation amounts to 'medical treatment' in breach of right to refuse such treatment safeguarded under Section 11 of the Bill of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, unlike the hospital beds and OT lights, the bedside cabinets and lockers, though customized to some extent for the convenient use of the patients and doctors, still they do not partake in the main task of diagnosis or treatment. Moreover, they can be used as home furniture also. Hence, they cannot be called as medical equipment or device to be categorized under Entry 111 of Schedule IV. So, in substance, while hospital beds and OT lights satisfy the term 'medical equipment', bedside cabinets and lockers do not in our considered view. Our view gets fortified by the following decisions cited by the petitioner: (i) In Commissioner of Sales Tax's case (2 Supra), the question before the High Court of Bombay was whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of dental chairs manufactured by the respondents therein was covered by Entry 22 of Schedule E and not by Entry 56 of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Sales Tax Officer in the assessment order and the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal held that the dental chairs come under the description 'furniture' thus falling under Entry 56 of Schedule C. However, in appeal the Tribunal obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace in the relevant entry of the Act was decided. It should be noted that in this case all the articles including bedside lockers described above are treated as hospital equipment and levied lower rate under Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. However, in our case since the words equipment, devices and implants are qualified by the term 'medical', only those equipments, devices and implants that partake the role in diagnosis, treatment or care of the patients either directly or indirectly, can be held to be covered under Entry 111 of IV schedule. In that process, bedside lockers and cabinets are excluded from that purview. 9. Then, we have perused the judgment in the case of E.V. Industries (3 supra) cited by the learned Government Pleader. In that case, item No.17 in the first schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 reads as "Safes, Almirahs and Furniture made of iron and steel". Going by it, the Assessing Authority treated certain articles (though such articles are said to be mentioned in the appendix, same is not enclosed to the judgment) sold by the dealer to the hospitals as falling under item No.17, levied tax @ 12% of turnover under Section 5 of KGST Act. The....