\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Tax Revision Case No. 48 of 2022 Tax revision under Section 22(1) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957, aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2009 in T.A.No.810 of 2008 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad against the order dated 05.06.2008 in CCTs.Ref.No.LV(1)11O2912O07-APGST on the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal)-FAC- O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, preferred against the order dated 12.10.2004 in Appeal No.S/49/2004-2005 on the file of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, against the order daled 31.03.2004 in Assessment No.A2l41l20O0-01 on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar, Secunderabad. Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the State Representative before STAT, D.No.5-4-404 to 408 Nampally, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Respondent. AND M/s. Kilburn Reprographics Ltd.,5-4-18712, Karbala Maidan, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. ...RespondenUAppellant. ?dJq, Counsel for the Petltioner: Sri K. Raji Adf,-The Spl. Standing Counsel Commercial Taxes. Counsel for the Respondent: - The Court made the following: ORDER I i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA TREVC. No.48 of 2022 ORDER:(per the Hort'ble Sri Justtce T.Vinod Kumar) This Tax Revision Case, at the behest of Revenue, is hled against the order of the Sales Ta,x Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal), dt.08.09.2009 in TA.No.8lo of 2008 preferred by the respondent-assessee. 2. Heard Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the rcvision petitioner-State and perused the record. 3. The question of law raised in the present revision case relates as to whether the photo-copying machines are to be classified as 'electric goods' under Entry- 12 dealing with 'type Writers, tabulating calculating machines, teleprinters and teleprinting machines and duplicating machines arrd parts and accessories thereof or to be classified as 'electronic goods' as falling under Entry 38D of the Schedulel to the APGST Act, 1957(for short'the ActJ. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel would fairly submit that the question of law as raised in the present revision case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in M/s BPL 7 Ltd. v. State ofAndhra Pradeshr as wcil as M/s Concap Capacitors vs State OfAndhra Pradesh and Anr.2, 5. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s BPL Ltd (1 supra) held that the goods, which operate on the principle of eiectronics, would have to be classified as eiectronic goods. Also, the Supreme Court in M/s Coacap Capacitors' case(2 supra) held that 'ttLe list prepared bg the electronic commbsion hrur-s to be treated o,s pari of the Gouernment Order and tax ha,s to be leuied on that basb'. The Supreme Court in the said case while considering as to whetirer capacitors are covered by items 'electronic goods' or 'eiectric goods' heid that since the Electronic Commissioner included 'Capacitors' as one of the items, it was not open to the Tibunol to enter into the question as to the functions to be performed bg Capacitors and to remit the matter to decide o.s to uhether it would be couered bg the item 'electronic goods' or 'electric goods'. 6. The Tribuna-l following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Concap Capacitors (2 supra), referring to the guidelines issued by the Electronics Commission, found that photo-copying machine has been specified in the list at S.No.9-42 - "Electronic Paper Copiers" undcr the head of Data Processing Systems and OIEce Equipment' , ard held that irrespective of the fact whether duplicating machines were referred under Entry '32 aPsl qt ' (zooz) ro vst zo+ (sc) 3 12 or under Entry 38D of Schedule-I, would have to be treated as 'electronic goods'. 7. It is not shown to this Court that in spite of petitiooer/ Revenue placing on record material to show that the photocopying machines sold by the respondent/assessee do not operate on principle of electronics, such a finding is given by the Tribunal. 8. Further, this Court, in sirnilar circumstances, in WP.No.284O9 of 2008, dealing with microwaves, by order dt.15.12.2o22, following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in M/s BPL Ltd.'s case (l supra) and M/s Concap Capacitors'case (2 supra) held that once the goods are classified as electronic goods under the guidetnes issued by the Electronics Commission, it is not open for the Assessing Authority to classify the same as electric goods or under any other entr5r of the Act on the ground of existence of specific entry in the Schedule of the Act. 9. In view of the above settled position of law, the question of law raised in the present Tax Revision Case is without arty merit. i0. Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 1 1. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in the l,ght of this hnal order. SD/-M.VIJAYA BHASKAR JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 2. The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal)-FAC- O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. 3. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4. The Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar, Secunderabad. 5. One CC to the Spl., Standing Counsel for Taxes TOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies To, I I I I \ HIGH COURT DATEDOOlO112023 ORDER TRC.No.48 of 2002 Dismissing the T.R.C without costs- 5.o .$ Y, .s o P* o u! x, rL \\ r TE(4 \3\ .r? K*g /t ,i< I @43