3-star Electronics Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as.....orders.r. nayak, j.1. in this t.r.c. the following questions are said to arise for decision :1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the tribunal was legal, just and proper ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable sales tax appellate tribunal was right in holding that there are no valid reasons for condonation of delay in filing of first appeal ?3. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sales tax appellate tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the judgment of the karnataka high court in builders association of india v. state of karnataka [1990] 79 stc 442 could not have been the basis for the belated appeal, in view of the exposition of law by the karnataka high court ?2. the first appeal itself was presented before the first appellate authority, appellate deputy commissioner (ct), secunderabad, with a delay of one year five months and eighteen days. the reasons that was placed before the first appellate authority for condonation of the above delay by the petitioner was that it was under the bona fide impression at the time when the assessment orders were passed that the assessment officer had rightly subjected the turnover relating to the receipts on video shooting coverage and servicing amounting to rs. 8,10,967 to tax in view of the provisions of the 46th amendment to the constitution and the law then prevailing relating to works contract, subsequently, his advocate informed that such turnover relating to the receipts on video shooting coverage and servicing could not be subjected to tax and the turnover relating to the value of the goods, which were video cassettes only could be subjected to tax and under those circumstances he chose to file the appeal. that explanation offered by the petitioner-appellant was rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground that there was no change of law subsequent to the assessment.....