THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVI SI ON CASE No.118 of 2009

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. K.Sai Akarsh, learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner-

State, and Mr. L.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant Tax Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner- State under Section 22(1) read with Rule 10 of the APGST Rules under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘APGST Act’) assailing the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short ‘STAT’) in Tribunal Appeal No.142 of 2001, decided on 29.07.2008.

3. Vide the impugned order; the STAT allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein reversing the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, and the Commercial Tax Officer, N.S. Road, Hyderabad.

4. The question of law to be considered in this case is “whether the toughened glass used by the respondent in motor vehicles such as cars, jeeps, lorries etc. would fall within the purview of a motor vehicle accessory or would it be a glass or glassware under Entry 18(v) of Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act?”

5. The STAT reached to the conclusion that toughened glass used in motor vehicles will be a motor vehicle accessory as is reflected in Entry (1) of the First Schedule of the APGST Act, rather than Entry 18(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act and allowed the appeal of the respondent.

6. It is this order passed by the STAT which is under challenge in this Tax Revision Case.

7. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader was that the toughened glass sold by the respondent was nothing but a glass product and glassware, and as such, it would fall under Entry 18(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act and would be eligible to tax at the rate of 15%.

8. Upon perusal of the pleadings and particularly taking into note of the two old decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector Of Central Excise vs. Atul Glass I ndustries Pvt. Ltd., 1984 (18) ELT 542 (TRI-DEL) and Atul Glass I ndustries Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Collector of Central Excise and

Others, (1986) 63 STC 322 dealing with glass mirrors and wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reached to the conclusion that it cannot be held to be a product which would fall under Entry 18(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act. Likewise, there is an entirely different industrial process which makes the glass to be used in the motor vehicles and also while manufacturing mirrors for reflection. In both these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held the glass mirrors to be one which would not fall under the ambit of Entry 18(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act, but would fall under Entry (1) of the First Schedule of the APGST Act. 9. Recently, this Bench also had an occasion of dealing with another similar dispute in Tax Revision Case No.20 of 2009 & Batch, decided on 19.02.2025, wherein the product was a nipple sold by the general traders which was otherwise part of a feeding bottle. Whether it would be a general product or a rubber product, the judicial pronouncement was that, it would be a general product and cannot be said to be a rubber product.

10. Applying the same analogy and also endorsing the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments, we are also of the considered opinion that in the instant case also the product, as such, is a glass which is otherwise used only on the motor vehicles and that it is a

toughened glass used only for the purpose of fixing on the motor vehicles. Thus, it would squarely fall within the purview of a motor vehicle accessory and not under Entry 18(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act.

11. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass I ndustries Pvt. L