IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Tax Revision Case No.126 of 2010

Dated: 15.12.2025

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the State Representative before STAT,

D.No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally,

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

…Petitioner

AND

M/s.Aswini Homeo & Ayurvedic

Products Limited, 5-283/1,

Vajra House, HP Road, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

…Respondent JUDGMENT

: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant

Government Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Standing Counsel for the State Tax for the petitioner.

Perused the record.

2. The challenge in this tax revision case is to the order dated 01.12.2008 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in T.A.No.370 of 2004.

3. The point for consideration before this Court is as to whether the product from the respondent organization viz., Aswini Hair Oil is a medicated product or not and whether the same would fall within the purview of Entry 37 of the First Schedule as a drug or whether it would go under Entry 36 as a cosmetic.

4. Perusal of the record would go to show that the Tribunal while deciding the said issue was swayed away by the judgment of this very High Court in Special Appeal Nos.8 and 10 of 2000 decided on 12.04.2007 wherein the High Court dealing with the issue whether it would be a product under Entry 36 or Entry 37 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’) relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.P.L Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara reported in 104 STC 164 and another decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise vs.

Sharma Chemical Works reported in 132 STC 251 held that Aswani Homeo Hair Oil is a drug and is taxable under Entry 37 of First Schedule to the Act and would not fall under Entry 36.

5. There has been no material to show that the judgment rendered by this Court in Special Appeal Nos.8 and 10 of 2000 having been reversed subsequently to hold that the view taken by the Tribunal relying upon the High Court’s order to be incorrect. Moreover, we are also not inclined to interfere with the order for the reason that the issue already stands decided by this High Curt again in a batch of tax revision cases of similar nature in TREVC Nos.155 of 2004 and batch decided on 14.06.2024 and also in TREVC No.66 of 2009 dated 17.02.2025.

6. Given the aforesaid judicial precedents rendered in the recent past and also those which have been relied upon by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order, we do not find any merits in the question of law raised by the State.

7. The tax revision case, being devoid of merits, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J _______________________________

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

15.12.2025 mrm