ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the record. 2. The present is a Writ Petition which has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of assessment order, dated 30.08.2008, passed by the 2 nd respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act (as it then was). 3. The contention of the petitioner primarily is that the petitioners are engaged in business of trading orthopedic or fracture appliances and artificial joints and they are the registered dealer under the Commercial Tax Act. 4. According to the petitioner, the products which the petitioners are trading falls under Entry 2 of the Schedule I of the Andhra Pradesh VAT ACT now the Telangana VAT Act which is termed as “orthopedic or fractures appliances and artificial joints/implants used by handicapped persons”. According to the petitioner the products which they are dealing are exclusively those which are meant for the handicapped persons and therefore they are entitled for the exemption from payment of VAT under Section 17 of the Act. 5. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the government itself had specifically published a notification vide G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005, wherein they have introduced certain items which would fall under Schedule I in annexure 1 of the said notification, it specifically lays down eight (08) items which would get added to Entry 2 of Schedule I and out of those eight (08) items is one being Orthopedic or fracture appliances and the second one is artificial joints. The petitioner primarily is seeking exemption under Section 17 of the Act to the products which fall under those category. 6. It was also the categorical contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that those items which the petitioners are trading and which do not fall under the aforesaid two categories, the petitioner has been paying the regular taxes without fail. 7. 6. It was also the categorical contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that those items which the petitioners are trading and which do not fall under the aforesaid two categories, the petitioner has been paying the regular taxes without fail. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that though this notification is published by the government on 31.08.2005, even after couple of years the respondent authorities are still not properly appreciating the exemption which the petitioner seeks for in terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005, rather they are initiating assessment proceedings on the aforementioned goods which according to the petitioner falls under Entry 2 of the Schedule 1 to be one which falls under Entry 111 of Schedule IV which was inserted with effect from 01.09.2005. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also have produced two government orders vide dated, 08.08.2006 and the other dated 22.05.2009. Both of which pertaining to the orthopedic or fracture appliances and both these products to be one which falls under Entry 2 of Schedule I being entitled for the exemption under Section 7 of the Act. 9. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court, decided on 31.07.2024, in W.P.No.1505 of 2019 and batch matters; where infact, during the course of the proceedings, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader for the Department itself has conceded the fact that artificial joints are one which falls under Entry 2 of Schedule I and have also conceded that the artificial joints are only meant and invented for the use of persons with disabilities/handicapped and thus, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader accepted for the quashment of the assessment order and to hold that the orthopedic or fracture appliances and the artificial joints which the petitioners trade in, being exempted from payment of VAT and being the products which fall under Entry 2 of Schedule I. 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader contended that once when the government had inserted Entry 111 in Schedule IV, the products which the petitioners were trading also would be one which would fall under Schedule IV Entry 111. 11. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader contended that once when the government had inserted Entry 111 in Schedule IV, the products which the petitioners were trading also would be one which would fall under Schedule IV Entry 111. 11. According to the learned State Counsel, the nature of products traded by the petitioners also would come under the category of implants that which is reflected under Schedule IV Entry 111 and since this Entry 111 of Schedule IV have been inserted subsequent to Entry 2 of Schedule I, it would be this Entry which would prevail and would supersede the earlier Entries and the G.O. which was issued earlier. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Trading Company v. State of Kerala , [[2000] 119 STC 321 (KER)] , trying to emphasis that where there are two Entries that is the general and other specific Entries it would be the specific Entry which would prevail over the general Entry. Referring to the said judgment, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Entry 2 is a general Entry which was there in the statute, but the insertion of Entry 111 in Schedule IV being a specific and more wider Entry and therefore if the said Entry has been taken into consideration for taxing by the State Tax Authorities, the impugned order cannot be said to be in any manner bad and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Having heard the contentions putforth on either side and on perusal of record it would relevant at this juncture to reproduce the relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005, issued by the government: G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005; “In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Act, 2005, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in supersession of G.O.Ms.No.398, Revenue (CT.II) Department, Dt.31.03.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.490, Revenue (CT.II) Department, Dt.15.04.2005, hereby order that the HSN Codes in respect of thirteen (13) items in Schedule-I and seventy (70) items in Schedule-IV shall be as specified in Annexure-I and Annexure-II respectively appended to this notification”. This notification shall come into force on and from 01.09.2005. 14. This notification shall come into force on and from 01.09.2005. 14. In continuation to that it would be relevant to take note of the Annexure-I of the G.O.Ms.No.1615, dated 31.08.2005, issued by the government referring the Entry 2 also reads as under: ANNEXURE-I SCHEDULE - I Sl.No. Entry No. in Schedule Description of Goods HSN Code 1 1 Agricultural implements manually operated or animal driven 2 2 Aids and implements used by handicapped persons 1. Orthopedic or fracture appliances 9021.10 2. Artificial joints 9021.31 3. Hearing aids, excluding parts and accessories 9021.40 4. Other (parts and accessories) 9021.90 5. Braille typewriters (electric) 8469.20.10 6. Braille typewriters (non-electric) 8469.30.10 7. Wheel chairs for invalid (not mechanically propelled). 8713.10.10 8. Wheel chairs for invalid 8713.90.10 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. 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 deserves to be and is accordingly set aside with consequence to follow. 20. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.