The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal vs. M/S.National Glass Traders
Original PDF →Facts
The State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner, filed a Tax Revision Case challenging an order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) on July 29, 2008. The STAT had allowed an appeal filed by M/s. National Glass Traders, the respondent, reversing the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Commercial Tax Officer. The dispute centered on the classification of toughened glass used in motor vehicles. The petitioner contended that this toughened glass should be classified as glassware under Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act, taxable at 15%. The respondent argued it was a motor vehicle accessory.
Held
The Court held that the toughened glass used in motor vehicles squarely falls within the purview of a motor vehicle accessory and not under Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act. The reasoning was based on the analogy of Supreme Court judgments in Collector of Central Excise vs. Atul Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Atul Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Collector of Central Excise and Others, which held that glass mirrors do not fall under Entry 1B(v) but under Entry (1) of the First Schedule. The Court also referred to a recent decision by the same bench in Tax Revision Case No. 20 of 2009, which classified a nipple (part of a feeding bottle) as a general product rather than a rubber product. Applying this analogy, the Court concluded that toughened glass, specifically used on motor vehicles, is an accessory. The STAT's view was deemed proper, legal, and justified, warranting no interference. The Tax Revision Case was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether toughened glass used in motor vehicles (cars, jeeps, lorries, etc.) falls within the purview of a motor vehicle accessory, or if it should be classified as glass or glassware under Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act? Petitioner's argument: The toughened glass sold by the respondent is a glass product and glassware, thus falling under Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act, making it eligible for tax at the rate of 15%. Respondent's argument: The toughened glass used in motor vehicles is a motor vehicle accessory, as reflected in Entry (1) of the First Schedule of the APGST Act, and not under Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Schedule.
Sections Cited
Section 22(1), Rule 10, Entry 1B(v) of Sixth Schedule, Entry (1) of First Schedule
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I(OSHY AND THE HON RAB OU LE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CH/\I.APAT RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.118 of 2Oa9 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri lustrce P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. K.Sai Akarsh, learned Additional Gor ernment Pleader, representing the learned Special Government Pleader 'or the petitioner- State, and Mr. L.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the rr:spondent.
The instant Tax Revision Case has been preferreJ by the petitioner- State under Section 22(l) read with Rule 10 of the ,\ ,GST Rules under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, t95 z (for short 'APGST Act') assailing the order passed by the Sales Tax a:pellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short'STAT') in Tribrral Appeal No.142 of 2001, decided on 29.07.2008
Vide the impugned order; the STAT allowed the a tpeal filed by the respondent herein reversing the orders passed by the, Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, a r I the Commercial Tax Officer, N.S. Road, Hyderabad
The question of law to be considered in this ca:;r is "rvhether the toughened glass used by the respondent in motor vehi( les 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?"
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 1B(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST Act and allowed the appeal of the respondent. 6.ItisthisorderpassedbytheSTATwhichisunderchallengeinthis Tax Revision Case, T,ThecontentionofthelearnedAdditionalGovernmentPleaderwas that the toughened glass sold by the respondent was nothing but a glass product and glassware, and as such, it would fall under Entry 1B(v) of the sixth schedule of the APGST Act and would be eligible to tax at the rate of 15olo.
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 Industries Pvt' Ltd'l and Atul Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs' Collector of Central Excise and ' rsga (rs) err sqz (rnt orL) Others2 dealing with glass mirrors and wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reached to the conclusion that it cannot be h,:ii to le a product which would fall under Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Sch: lule of the APGST Act. Likewise, there is an entirely different industrial pr )cess which makes the glass to be used in the motor vehicles and also rv rile rnanufacturing mirrors for reflection. In both these cases, the Hon'ble :iuprerne Court has in very categorical terms held the glass mirrors to be o, e which would not fall under the ambit of Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Sch: lule of the APGST Act. but would fall under Entry (1) of the First Schedul: of the APGST Act.
Recently, this Bench also had an occasion of der:ling with another similar dispute in Tax Revision Case No.20 of 2009 [( Batch, decided on 19.O2.2025, wherein the product was a nipple sold by l,re general traders which was otherwise part of a feeding bottle. Whettrer it would be a general product or a rubber product, the judicial t r )nourrcement was that, it would be a general product and cannot be:;;id to be a rubber product.
Applying the same analogy and also endorsir c 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 proluct, as such, is a glass which is otherwise used only on the motor vehi:l3s and that it is a 1 ' 1rsso1 o: src:zz \ used onlY for the Purpose of fixing on the motor vehicles' iwo CD CoPies The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal' Andhra Pradesh' Hyderabad (With ffi,:$ffi tg*qH''*i'ft'iml;f6'"' accessory and not under Entry 1B(v) of the Sixth Schedule of the APGST toughened glass Thus, it would closed To, squarely fall within the purview of a motor vehicle . However, there shall be nor order ut to tottJr,;rg'W.#E[][i[ III/ TION OFFICER
In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Industries Pvt' Ltd' (supra) and also relying upon the judgment of this Bench in Tax Revision Case No'20 of 2009 & Batch' we are of the firm view that the view expressed by the STAT is proper' legal and iustified and does not warrant anY interference TheTaxRevisionCaSethusfails,andisaccordingly,dismissed. Act. t2,
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if anY, shall stand 1 2 J 4 DLiPSL w
i HIGH COURT DATED:2510812025 ORDER TREVC.No.I 18 of 2009 DISMISSING THE TAX REVISION CASE /: /,, -: i -t' 17 0[T [2q '.\. .<- -:U' cod(zl> \*'-^o .._.f\qd- \\
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.