APHC010424572004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 198/2004 Between: 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE STATE REPRESENTAIVE BEFORE STAT, REP. BY THESTATE REPERESENTAIVE BEFORE STAT D.NO.5-4-404 TO 408, NAMPALLY HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/SKOTHARI COSMOTICS MEHANDI VIJAYAWADA, M/s Kothari Cosmotics Mehandi , face power & Spices Syped Gulab Street, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT take the TRC on file and set aside the orders of the STAT in TA.No.1451/99 dated 4-6-04 . Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.198 of 2004 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.198 of 2004 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent was a dealer in „Mehandi‟. The Commercial Tax Department sought to tax the said mehandi under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 @ 12%, on the ground that mehandi would fall within the definition of „cosmetics‟, which is entry No.36 of Schedule I of A.P.G.S.T. Tax. 2. The respondent sought to dispute the same firstly, on the ground that, mehandi would fall within the meaning of cosmetic and secondly on the ground that it would be the lower rate of tax mentioned under Section 8 (2) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. On the first ground, the Tribunal had held in favour of the Department by holding that mehandi would be a cosmetic. There is no revision filed by the respondent against this finding and as such, the same would be final. 4. However, the Tribunal held that the rate of tax would only be 10%, in view of the provision of Section 8 (2) (b) of the CST Act, which was available for the period, which is under assessment and the said period being 1994-95. 5. The State, being aggrieved by this view of the Tribunal, is in revision before this Court. 6. The provision of Section 8 (2) (b) of the CST Act reads as follows: 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.198 of 2004 (2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling within sub-section (1) – (a) ___ (b) in the case of goods other than declared goods, shall be calculated at the rate of ten per cent. or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher; 7. The Tribunal took the view that the words “whichever is higher” was not available in Section 8 (2) (b) till 01.04.2002, when the said provision was amended. 8. A perusal of the said provision would show that the words “whichever is higher” were available even before the amendment of 01.04.2002. To that extent, the view of the Tribunal is negatived and has to be set aside. 9. It appears that, the tax liability, by virtue of this decision of the Court would be Rs.1459/-. 10. Despite diligent efforts, the respondent could not be served with any notice in the matter. It also appears that the respondent has shut down its office and is not available. 11. In the circumstances, though we would hold in law, that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the rate of tax would be a lower rate at 10%, 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.198 of 2004 no further purpose would be served by this Revision inasmuch as the cost of recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1459/- would be far higher than the recovery of tax. 12. In the circumstances, this Tax Revision Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 02.02.2026 MJA 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.198 of 2004 232 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 198/2004 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 02.02.2026 MJA