THE STATE OF A.P. v. M/S. MASQUATI DAIRY PRODUCTS
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 2025-12-17. THE STATE OF A.P. v. M/S. MASQUATI DAIRY PRODUCTS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FryDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Tax Revision Case No. 166 of 20L0 Tax revision filed under Section 22(1) read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules against the order dated 09. 03. 2006 passed in T. A. No. 109/2006 on the iile of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad preferred against the order dated 19. 02. 2005 passed in Asst. No. 2017 /7999-2000/APGST on the file of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Charminar Division, Hyderabad. Between: The State of Andfua Pradesh, rep. by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, before STAT D. No. 5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad . -. Petitioner. AND M/s. Masquati Dairy Products, (Regd. Partnership Concern) R/o. 22-4-470, Aliljah Kotla' Hyderabad' ... Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.
Chaitanya Kiran (SPL SC FOR CT AP) Counsel for the Respondent: Sri J. Krishna Dev The Court made the following: ORDER IN 'fHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TH]I HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAIVI KOSHY THE HoN,oURABLE sRI JUs;}XSsuDDALA cHATAPATHI RAo Tax Revision Case No. 166 of 2O1O Date of Order z 17. 12. 2o125 I \ sprwEEN : The State of Andhra Pradesh Petitioner Vs. M/ s. Masqua':i Dairy Products ... Respondent ORDER : (per Hon'ble SriJustice P. SAilI KOSI{Y) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent trad informed the Court that the issue raised in the present Tax Flevision Case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Division lfench in Tax Revision Case (S. R. ) No. 36l of 2OO7, dated 12. O2. 2025. 2. This Cotrrt, having perused the record, is of the considered view that the issue: raised in the present Tax Revision Case is squarely covered by thr: ord. er passed by this Division Bench in Tax Revision Case (SR) No.
3r61 of 2OO7, dated L2. O2. 2O25. Therefore, following the said order and for reasons alike, the instant Tax Revision Case also being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. V. S. PRASAD DEPUTYEGISTRAR I / /TRUECOP\ / / SECTION OFFICER To, '1,. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad , 2. The Dep uty Co ri. i"issioner (CT) Charminal? Yi19": !. IYderabad' 3. One CC to Sri T. Chaitanyu kirit, (sPL SC FOI1 CT AP) Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri J. Krishna Dev, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies. order passed TRC (SR) No. 35L,/2007 dated (Noie: The Registry i's directed to enclose copy of the 12. 02. 2O2s. 1 ICK/rrsl W i HIGH COU]TT \ DATED:17 /12/202s ORDER TREVC. N o. '1. 65 of 201,0 Dismissing the T. R. E. V. C. n,ithout costs. ,,,. "6"L S$. AND I. A. No. 2 of 2OO7 IN/AND T. R. E. v. C. (FillNo. 361 oF 2Oo7 COMMON JUDGMENTi @er Hon'btesriJustice P.
sanKostts)' The matter is taken up for consid. eration of I. A. No. 2 of 2OO7. The instant petition has been filed seeking for condonation of delay of 213 days in filing the revision case. 2. Though we do not find strong and sufficient grounds made available explaining the detay of 213 days seeking condonation of the salne. 3. Nonetheless, we find it difficult to reject ,1. condone delay petition by the High Court in a petition that was filed in 2OOT i-e. , after around 18 years of the liling of the tax revision case, only for the reason of'the long lapse on time from the institutiotr,'the petition is taken up for hearing today, we are inclined to allow I-A. No. 2 of 2OO7 ' As a consequence, the delay of. 2L3 days stands condoned. 4. Upori hearing the learned, counsel for the State <in admission, we find that the challenge in the instant revision case iS to the order dated 09. 03. 2006, passed in T. A. No. 114 of 2006 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the tribunat). 5.
The,point of issue decided by the tribunal was whether the Ghee and Creanr sold by the respondent/assessee is prepared from the surplus mitk or not? and whether the Ghee and Cream are 'products' of milk or '1:y-products'of milk or not? We find that the tribunal while deciding the matter in T. A. No. 114 of 2006 has elaborately gone into the details rrnd have based upon the Tribunal's own decision rendered in the case Chittoor District Cooperatiae Milk Producers' Union Linlted V. Stqte of Andhra Pradeshl, has allowed the appeal preferred b'y the petitioners and the order passed by the Deputy Commission. er CT dated 19. O2. 2OO5 was set aside. 6. After ,lue consideration of the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and on perursal of the pleadings that are made available to us, we do not find any strong case made out by the petitidners to show that the impugned order is either erroneous in 1aw or is factually incorrect.
No materials have been shown either by way of Government Ord. ers or by way of any of the Judicial Precedents to show that (ihee and Cream are not products of milk liable for exemption. I\{oreover, we find the order passed by the tribunal after due consider,etion of factual matrix of the case and we do not find any substantial question of law involved and therefore, the Ta>r Revision '28 APsrJ p. 116. Case being devoid of merits and deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. P. SAM KOSHY, J NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J Date: 12. 02. 2025 AQS
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.