ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The writ petitioner filed the following 10 writ petitions seeking writ of mandamus declaring the Assessment Orders passed by 3rd respondent on different dates for different tax periods described writ petition wise infra, treating sales of certain equipment as hospital equipment or hospital furniture instead of treating them as medical equipment and levying tax @ 14.5% instead of 5% under Entry 111 of IV schedule to the A.P. Value Added Tax, 2005 (for short, 'the 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-

9. 21799/2020 2014-15 29.01.2019 15,86,461 -do-

10. 22163/2020 April 2015 to March 2016 27.12.2019 15,63,960 -do-

2. In W.P. Nos. 21450, 21799 & 22163 of 2020, counters filed by learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes opposing the writ petitions on the main contention that the petitioner is carrying on business in medical/hospital equipment and on verifying his returns the Assessing Authority found that the hospital equipment sold by the petitioner during the relevant assessment years is liable to tax @ 14.5% as they come under the residuary schedule V of the A.P. VAT Act. The contention of the petitioner that he was doing business in medical/hospital equipment viz., ICU beds, fowlers beds, semi-fowler hospital beds, emergency stretcher unit, patient examination bed, physiotherapy bed etc. which fall within the description of medical equipment/devices and implants' in Entry No. 111 of Schedule IV and hence, tax is to be levied only 5% on the turnover is far-fetching as the equipment dealt with by the petitioner is only a furniture and therefore, he cannot absolve his liability to pay tax @14.5%. It is further contended that the hospital equipment cannot be equated with medical equipment inasmuch as, the hospital equipment like hospital beds, racks, lockers, operation theatre lights etc. will only answer the description of hospital furniture, but not medical equipment. The term 'medical equipment' means an instrumentality, used with skill either in diagnosis or cure of a disease and therefore, every hospital equipment cannot be treated as medical equipment. The 3rd respondent treated the above equipment as hospital equipment following the CCT's Circular Ref. No. A111(3)/48/2009 dated 20.02.2009 and CCT's Circular reference in CCT's Addl. CCT/Enft/DCTO-1/60/2010 dated 16.11.2010. The Advance Ruling Authority in CTD Order AO. No. 58/2016 dated 21.05.2016 in AR.Com. 42/2009 dated 21.05.2016 pleased to decide the tax liability on the issue of patient cots, patient beds etc. by holding that they do not fall under any of the entries in Schedule I, II, IV and VI of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 and to be treated as hospital furniture falling under residuary entry of Schedule V. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioners Sri P. Balaji 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 v