TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r respondent/assessee. Perused the record. 2. This Tax Revision Case is filed assailing the order in TA.No.143 of 2005, dt.09.02.2010, on the file of the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short 'the STAT'). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/assessee namely M/s. Mayuri Film Distributors, is a distributor of audio cassettes and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax officer, Begumpet, Hyderabad. For the assessment year 200001, the Commercial Tax Officer (for short 'the CTO'), initially issued a show-cause notice proposing to levy tax on sales of audio cassettes @ 12% under Section 5AA treating the respondent/ assessee as trademark holder of 'Mayuri' and the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hra Pradesh v. Concap Capacitors & Others [10 VST 204] and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dunlop India Limited [3 APSTJ 84] allowed the appeal holding that the G.O.Ms.No.252 was not rescinded by G.O.No.910, dt.31.12.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.252 issued under Section 9(1) of the Act is operative till it is rescinded irrespective of the changes in the entries to the Act and thus remanded to determine rate of tax as per G.O.Ms.No.252, dt.19.05.1995 for extending the benefit of concessional rate of tax @ 3.5%. 7. Assailing the said order of the learned STAT, the petitioner/Revenue has filed the present Tax Revision Case on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the G.O.Ms.No.252, dt.19.05.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entry 10 of First Schedule, the G.O.Ms.No.252, dt.19.05.1995 gets redundant and the assessee cannot get the benefit from such government order. 10. Sri Tarun Chadha, learned counsel representing Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for respondent/assessee while supporting the orders of the learned STAT contended that the learned STAT has rightly arrived at the conclusion that since the G.O.Ms.No.252 was not rescinded, by the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.910, dt.31.12.1999, it is operative till it is rescinded and thus, the commodity brought under Entry 10 of First Schedule shall not make the Government Order redundant and contended that the remand with reference to the rate of tax as per G.O.Ms.No.252 is just and proper and does not w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The mere amendment of an entry in the First Schedule cannot, by necessary implication, nullify a concession granted under a statutory notification. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.252, dt.19.05.1995, had not been rescinded during the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the introduction of Entry 10 in the First Schedule by G.O.Ms.No.910, dt.31.12.1999, did not have the effect of withdrawing the concessional rate granted to electronic goods, as was held by the learned STAT. 15. The above conclusion stands fortified by the decision of this Court in Super Cassette Industries' case(supra), wherein it was categorically held that pre-recorded audio cassettes fall within Item No.16.1 of the list published by the Electronics Commission of India and are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions and notifications, which were rendered in different factual circumstances. 18. In the present case, the benefit claimed by the respondent/assessee arises from G.O.Ms.No.252, dt.19.05.1995, issued under Section 9(1) of the Act, which specifically follows the classification made by the Electronics Commission of India. It is not in dispute that the said Government Order remained in force and it was neither withdrawn nor cancelled during the relevant assessment year. 19. Since the Government Order was neither withdrawn nor superseded, the benefit granted thereunder could not be denied merely due to the introduction of Entry 10 in the First Schedule to the Act. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the Revenue do not support the....