THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P Nos.7458 OF 2015, 9853 & 12395 OF 2013 COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the respondents.

Perused the record.

2. The question of law in all these three writ petitions preferred by the assessee being same, we intend to decide them by this common order.

3. The question of law that was put for consideration was whether the product which is stated by the petitioners herein i.e., orthopedic or fracture appliances and artificial joints would fall under Entry 2 of Schedule I of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, now the Telangana VAT Act, under the entry “orthopedic or fractures appliances and artificial joints/implants used by handicapped persons”.

4. The reliance by the petitioners was on G.O.Ms.No.1615 dated 31.08.2005 which introduced certain specific items which would fall under Schedule I in Annexure 1 of the said notification.

5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel representing both the parties contended that the same issue recently came up for consideration in W.P.No.20716 of 2008, decided on

25.09.2025 and in paragraphs 15 to 19, it was held as under:

15. So far as reference made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader to Entry 111 in Schedule IV is concerned which again for ready reference is reflected hereinunder:

111. Medical equipments / devises and implants.

16. A plain reading of the aforementioned material clearly indicates that the notification has a special purpose, under which each of the relevant Entries falls. With respect to Entry 2 in Schedule I, a reading of the Entry alongside G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005, shows that the government intended to exempt the applicability of VAT on products used by orthopedic surgeons as is reflected in the aforementioned G.O.Ms., dated 31.08.2025, for the treatment of handicapped and disabled individuals. It was through this notification G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005 that the government clarified and limited the scope of exemption under Schedule I under Entry 2 to products reflected in the aforementioned G.O.Ms., dated

31.08.2025.

17. Plain reading of Entry 111 of Schedule IV would reveal that the said Entry was in respect of Medical Equipments, devises and implants which are used for treatment other than the treatment rendered upon an orthopedic patients and where the items mentioned in Entry 2 in Schedule I is used for treatment.

18. It was also brought to the attention of this Bench that the government, through a subsequent notification dated 19.03.2013, rescinded G.O.Ms.No. 1615, dated 31.08.2005. Following this, the petitioner began paying the applicable tax, which further supports their claim that, until the notification dated 19.03.2013 rescinding G.O.Ms.No.1615 came into effect, the products in question traded by the petitioners fell under the exempted category under Section 7 of the Act. This also strengthens the petitioner’s case, indicating that until then, Entry 2 of Schedule I and Entry 111 of Schedule IV were concurrently in effect and in force. It is not the case that the insertion of Entry 111 in Schedule IV (effective from 01.07.2006) had, in any way, amended, repealed, or nullified Entry 2 of Schedule I or G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005.

19. For all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ petition and hold that the products traded by the petitioner which falls under HSN Code No.9021.10 and 9021.31, which fall under Entry 2 of Schedule I and not under Entry 111 of Schedule IV and to the aforesaid extent, the assessment order, dated 30.08.2008, is not sustainable and the same