IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA :

HYDERABAD * * *

TAX REVISION CASES NOS.115, 113, 114 AND 116 OF 2008 TREVC No.115 of 2008 Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent TREVC No.113 of 2008 Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent TREVC No.114 of 2008 Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent TREVC No.116 of 2008 Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 25.07.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No.

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No.

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA + TAX REVISION CASES NOS.115, 113, 114 AND 116 OF 2008 % 25.07.2025 # Between:

Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent TREVC No.113 of 2008 Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent TREVC No.114 of 2008 Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent TREVC No.116 of 2008 Between:

M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., (Presently known as ‘Xerox India Ltd. Hyderabad). ...Petitioner v.

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemi Reddy ^Counsel for the respondent : Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax.

> HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. 32-APSTJ-41

2. 140 STC Page 17

3. Appeal (Civil) No.4832 of 2007

4. Civil Appeal No.651 of 2005, dt.11.08.2010

5. 2001 SCC Online AP 869

6. 1998 (1) ALD 70

7. Appeal (Civil) No.444-445 of 2001, dated 09.01.2011

8. 2003 131 STC 16, dated 02.12.2002 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION CASES NOS.115, 113, 114 AND 116 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

This batch of Tax Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner challenging the common order, dated 26.03.2008, in T.A.Nos.553, 552, 554 and 555 2006 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the STAT’).

2. The petitioner - M/s. Modi Xerox Limited (presently known as ‘Xerox India Limited, Hyderabad) is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the petitioner is that Entry 12 is a specific Entry for Photocopiers and entry 38 is general in nature. In fact, the Tribunal ignored that Entry 12 which was introduced in the year 1958 was not meant for including photocopiers as it is a new invention in Electronic revolution. However, the Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that Entry 12 to Schedule-I being a specific Entry, Entry 38 of Schedule I is in the nature of general entry has no application. It is the further case of the petitioner that Entry 12 to Schedule I refers to ‘Duplicating Machines’ which in those days were called as ‘Cyclostyle Machines.’ It is stated that the legislature could not have intended by any stretch of imagination to include ‘Xerox Machines’ under Entry 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the APGST Act, 1957’). It is further stated that there is lot of difference between Duplicating Machine and Photocopier. Since Entry 38 of Schedule-I includes various Electronic goods and parts there