M/S.MAHARASTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD v. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-01. M/S.MAHARASTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD v. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TREVC Nos: 7 and 34 OF 2010 T. R. E. V. C. No. 7 of 2010 Tax Revision is filed under Section 22(1)of the APGST ACT Read with Rule 40 of APGST Rules against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. inT. A. No. 419 of2OO4, dt. 2-09-2009 . Between: M/s. MAHA RASTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED, 2nd Floor, Vasavi Towers, 3-6-98, Main Road, West Marredpally, Secunderabad 500 026 - ... PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the State Representative before STAT Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. V. B. S. NARASIMHA ANUDEEP Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOW. PLEADER FOR STATE TA)( T. R. E. V. C. No.
34 of 2010 Tax Revision is filed under Section 22(1) of APGST ACT Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T. A. No. 420 of 2OO4,dt 2-09-2009 . Between: M/s. MAHA RASTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED, 2nd Floor, Vasavi Towers, 3-6-98, Main Road, West Marredpally, Secunderabad - 5O0 026 ... PETITIONER ----<v AND State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the State Represer t ,tive before STAT Hyderabad. ... RESPOill IENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY, SE \llOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. V. B. S. NAR,A ;IMHA ANUDEEP Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, S;l ECIAL GOW. PLEADER FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: , THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TREVC. Nos.
T and 34 of 2O1O COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble si Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao) Though these Tax Revision Cases arise out of separate assessment orders, since the petitioner and the ljs involved, are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. These Tax Revision Cases are hled by the petitioner/assessee assailing the orders passed by the learned Sales Tax Appella:-e Tribuna-l, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short the STAT') in TA. No. 419 and 42O of 2OO4, dt. O2-O9. 2OO9' relating to the asscssment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. 3. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner/ assessee is engaged in the business of hire purchasing and leasing and is registered on the rolls of Commercial Ta-x Ofhcer, Marredpally Circle, Secunderabad (for short 'the Assessing Authority) under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957 (for short 'the Actl, and the c Assessing Authority, by order, dt. 16. 11.
199g, gr: rted exemption towards second sales turnover for 1995-96 baser on the deta*s furnished by it. 4. Subsequently, invoking power under Sectic -r V(4) of the Act, the Assessing Authority reopened the assess nent, issued a pre-assessment notice, and by orders, dt. 21. 01 . 2Ct O, for both the assessment years disallowed the exemptions and Ii . ed tax liability on the assessee. 5. Assailing the said orders, the assessee hled rppeals before the Appetlate Deputy Commissioner (CT), pun1e1 utta Division, Hyderabad (for qrhe short appellate authority,) ul: u Appeal Nos. 542/7999-2000 and S43/tggg_OO and the sar c appeals were allowed by the appelrate authority uide orders t. 23. o2. 2ooo, restoring the exemption granted by the assessing zr rhority in the first assessment orders. 6.
Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner (( T), Legal, (for short 'the revisional authority), exercising ponrers Lnder Section 2O(21 of the Act issued notice proposing to revi: r, the orders passed by the appellate authority for both assessm( rt years, and procedure, revised the orders passed by thereafter, following due urde orders, dt'19'O2'2OO4' the appellate authority has challenged the said revisional 7. The appellant/assessee TA'No'419 and 42O of 2OO4' orders before the learned STAT uide record after appreciating the evidence on and the learned STAT by the revisional authority' and has confrrmed the orders passed cases are filed' assailing the same, the present tax revision of substantial questions 8.
The following are the law(consolidatedinbothcases),u'hichfellforconsiderationbefore us: Tax Appeltate Tribunal is contrary a) The order of the Sales unjust and unsustainable and to law, material on record, thereby' its order is wholly vitiated in consider thc casc of the assessee b) The Tribunal failed to the correct perspectlve and in the light of the principles laid down in thL decided cases and its order is wholly vitiated thereby. see that the Additional c) The Tribunal failed to in (CT) Lcgal, Hyderabad erred Commissioner 1995- 96 re-assessing the origi nal assessment for the Ycar were granted by the where under the exemPtions material, any of Authority without perusal the entire on record.
arguments including the written available to the to sce that orders relating d) The Tribunal failed any fresh transactions of the ycars 1995-96 s'ithout of the identification' enquiries as to ascertainment dealers in 1998-99 and genulneness and existence of the 1999-2OOO are unreasonable and dehors ng the said enquiries and the material and to the said t,t ect the order of re-assessment is wholly viLiated thereby. e) The Tribunal failed to see that th, Additional Commissioner (CT) l,egal, Hyderabad, ( 'red in re- assessing the original assessment for the. ear 1995-96 where under the exemptio. r" *. r. g. u i ted by the Authority without arry perusal of the er r re material, includrng the written arguments available -ecord. orr f) The Tribunal failed to see that the z. r sessee filed documentaqr evidence for the entire turn(f er and it is factually wholly incorrect to observe that thr: rssessee did not do so. 9. We have heard the a-rguments of Sri y.
Sr nivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. \ . B. S. Narasimha Anudeep, counsel for the petitioner/assessee, ir rd Sri Srvaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent/Revenue. 10. The contention of the learned Senior Counr; I appearing for the petitioner/assessee, based on the above subs,, ntial questions of las', is of twofold. 11. Firstlg, it rvas contended that the revisional ar thority,s order, dt. lg. O2. 2OO4, is barred by limitation, as the ar; essment order passed by the assessing authority was on 2r. or. 2r 00, and under Section 20(21 of the Act, the period of limitation -evision for. is four years. Hence, the revision made is beyond the said period' as such to be set aside' limitation and liable the revision is barred by while exercising powers contended that 12.
Secon-dlg, it was to consider the revisional authority failed under Section2O(2l,the documentary evidence along with voluminous written submissions produced by the petitioner, showing that tax had already been paid by the first registered dealers on the disputed turnover the well- relating to second sales and erroneously' reversed Authority' Further' the lirst Appellate considered findings of the appreciated the documents liled before it learned STAT has not Thus' it showing the payment of tax by the hrst registered dealers' orders of the learned STAT the impugned is contended that both Section 20(2) of the authority under and the order of the revisional be set aside' Act are liable to Oorilla, Iearned Special Government 13. Per contra, Sri Swaroop Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent/ Revenue submitted that the revisional authority revised the orders of the original but nol the appellate authority, dt.
23'O2'2OOO, for the learned counsel contended by the assessment orders, as passed on the revision orders petitioner, and therefore, 19 'o2. 2oo4 , is within the four years limitation rrescribed under section 20(21 of the Act and as such the content cn of the learned Senior Counsel is untenable. 14. It was further submitted that the petitioner. ailed to prove its claim of exemption on the alleged second s eles by placing documentary evidence showing the payment cl tax at the first point of sale by the registered dealer a'd cor _ended that the findings of the learned STAT and the revision rl authority a_re justified, well founded and needs no interference t r this Court 15. Learned Special Government pleader furthe. contended that if the petitioner/ assessee,s claim was genuine, l rey would have produced documents or evidence before this Cour to substantiate their claim that the goods purchased by it had Iready suffered tax at the first point of sale by registered dealer.
r , thus entitling them to exemption on second sales. The failure or the part of the petitioner/assesisee in doing so would clinchingly rove I that there is no evidence to substantiate their claim that t,l : was collected from the lirst registered dealers and thus, prayerl to dismiss the revlslon cases. , 7 to the submissions earnest considetation 16. We have given record' side and perused the counsel on either made by the orders' hrst contention that the revisional 17 . Coming to the sake' for convenience being barred by limitation' dt. lg. O2. 2OO4 of Section 2O the Act is extracted hereunder: .. 2o-Revisionby(CommissionerofCommercialTaxes}and authorities' other Prescribed may suo motu of Commercial Taxes) (1) The (Commissioner passed or th" t""ota of any order call for arrd "x'-'ni officer or person bv anv authoritv'- ;;;;dd;"corded of this Act' including subordinate to it, uriaei Uce irovisions and if such order or (21' oi this section ;;;^;". t.
t -o[ to the interests l" prejudiciar ;;;;;;-;o'a"a to suttt e"q"ity' or cause such enquiry revenue, may make provisions. of this Act' mav subject to the ;;;;; arid set such order t""i""' todify ot aside initiate proceediog"io order in reference thereto p.. ""'"atg *i *"y p"""'such ", as it thinks fit' (I) may also t2l Powers of the nature referred to in sub section \/'' or the joint commissioner' ;;";;;; tv eaait""'r or Assistant p"p"ty Commissioner Commissioner, --the rax-officer in case ti" bommercial ;;;;i;"i;;"t'urra by authorities' of orders p^"""a of p'oceedings . recorded to them' officers or persons subordinat. e shall not (1) or section (2) (2-A) The power under sub section 'specihea -sub therein in respect of tr'Jl""i'"tty be exercised W is ttt<l subject matter o[ an any issue ot q""tiit'-*ftict' aooealbefore,o''*JtJ"rt-*""decidedonappealby'the Section 2 1' ni'perhte Tribunal under this Act' passed under an-order of assessment (3) ln relation to be (r).
and {2) shall ti sections the powers ""t "o''"tti"C excecding four suctr perioa not exercisable onv tJtil vears from tfl" a#*ot *ftl"h th" otd"t was served on the 'de. l"r, a" maY be Prescribed' (1) or sub sub section passed under t4l No order shall be l'+' unless an any assessment tii--L.. rt-"iut'g ". ". ,i"i-has been given to the :pp9rt|lity assessr:, to show cause agarnst the proposed enhancement. (s) Wl:. : order passed under this sectirr - has been set aside by any court or other competent aut! : rrit5r under this Ac: for a:y. reason) the p"rioa tei*. e"* jr"*""r ii , *"r, order and the date on which it h"" ;;;; .. computine. the p",i. J;ir;;, ""lXia. "uu *. :l1rl"o i, ,"-l"lo"",n"a secrion (3) for the ", pu. pose of ::. ,:lo_ o lfi"g f.. "h re\ rsron, rl any, under this secuon. (6) arrv proceeding under this section ! -here hl been deferred on account of anv stav order granted I f th. Spe"lat Appellate_ Tribunal in anli case, or by reasorr lf the fact that p or other p.
oceedins is "? ,p. ul d;dh;,; ,. JrlJ""o""r, Appellare Tribunal -Co,, or the. -Supre-" ,'irrlIurng , '. r,""1. o". or. law havins a direci b";;";; ::^yl1? proceedrng in quesrion. rhe period dUig , niJ il. . t. V". order was in force o. . r"i ;;;;a *. " pending shall be excluded "pp"rr--o1";, rn computing th: period of four years specified in this secrion fo. ri" p;-. p;*; Ioili... ,"i"e the power under this Section 18' From a perusal 0f the record it is cleaf ul rt the revisional authority has revised the orders of the . F. 1 pellate Deputy Commissioner, dt. 23. O2. 2OOO, as such the perioc )f limitation will start from 23. O2. 2OOO and the revisional ord. ers dt. lg. O2. 2OO4, passed under Sectio n 2O(2) of the Act, are well witl in the four year limitation period prescribed under Section 2crl )) of the Act. Therefore, the plea of limitation raised by the [earned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is untenable and rejecte j 19.
Coming to the second contention of the earned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of the pt: itioner placing voluminous documents in support of its claim for exemption on second sales, as the goods suffered tai at the point of first sale' the same has not been considered, a perusal of the orders of the revisional authority as well as the learned STAT indicate that both the authorities, who are fact f,rnding authorities after detailed it, have categorically held records placed before examination of the claimed from whom the petitioner that the hrst registered dealers, were found to be the goods, on verification' to have purchased of the and that the tax details non-existent and unidentifrable not produced by the petitioner to alleged first dealers were also justify its claim for exemPtion' 20.
As rightly contended by the learned Special Government petitioner that' had the Pleader for respondent/Revenue goods to prove that the material/documents possessed relevant tax' who had already paid were purchased from registered dealers' the revisional produced before could have been such evidence least learned STAT, or at before this Court' and authority or the failure to do so, at all the stages, further weakens the petitioner's by the was not appreciated contention that relevant material STAT' well as the learned revisional authority as \ 21. Hence, the contention of the learned counr; ,1. for the revision petitioners that the ... revisional authorit5r and e learned STAT failed to appreciate the material placed before thr m, appears to be untenable, more so, when both the fact findin5; authorities have concurrently held that the payment of tax at frrr; point of sale by the registered dealer is doubtful and not genuine. 22.
Thus, this Court linds no force in the s I cmission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the goods had already suffered tax at the first point of sale L r the registered dealers arld the said contention of the petiti I rer was rightly disbelieved and rejected by the rearned srAT a. r the revisional authority. 23. In view o[ the above hndings, we lind no infir nity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the revisional arr horit5r and the learned STAT, warranting interference of thjs Court. The substantial questions of lau, are answerec against the petitioner/assessee and in favour of the responden /Revenue. 24. According$, both the Ta_x Revision Cases jismissed. arc No order as to costs xtrw i1 , As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/. Sd/- K. SHYLESHI I JOINT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Sates Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2.
The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad 3- The Addl. Commissioner (CT), (Legal ) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad 4. The Commercial Tax Officer, Marredpally Circle, Secunderabad. 5. One CC to SRl. M V B S NARASIMHA ANUDEEP, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Govt. Pleader for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabd. 7. Two CD Copies kul HIGH COURT DATED:O111212O25 THE S rJ T4 ( o . J COMMON ORDER ? t? l 7_ '7 r9 . 2, , TREVC. Nos. T& 34 of2010 ; _'/ '\. * -+ \l 'Pr\-nl DISMISSING THE BOTH TAX REVISION CASES WITIIOUT COSTS A
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.