The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S. DWA KANATH The Court made the following ORDER: ""'t y 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX RI,VISION CASE No.6 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Kosh1,1 Heard Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Ta.x appearing on behalf ol'the petitioner and Mr.S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant petition under Section 22(l) read u,ith Rule l0 of the APGST Act has been prefened by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.08.2008 in T.A.No.118l of 2001 passed by the Saies l'ax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Ilyderabad (for shorl, the'STAT').

3. The learned Special Standing Counsel for Comrnercial Tax after arguing on admission pointed out the question of law as regards whether the STAT was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent helein on the ground that no contrary evidence is found. 2

4. However, perusal of the rec would go to show that the contention raised by the leamed pecial Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax has been threadb re dealt with by the STAT in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of its judg ent; which for ready reference is reproduced herein under, viz., "7 - Point: We may refer to par which is as underl 1 '1 of the said judgment, "1 1 . Point (b): lt is the cas buyers whrle issuing 'C Kesoram Cement, Jalga Cement, Basanthnagar. S the 'C' declaration de Kesoram Cement, Jalgaon appellant ilself and the s the appellant to collect contention of the learned of the appellant that the forms mentioned f\//s. instead of Kesoram ch defect cannot render ive inasmuch as M/s is the branch office of the d branch office assisted C' form. It is the vocate for the appellant e that the facts of the appella the facts of the case law t are in pari materia with declared by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ca e of C. Jairam Put. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1983) 52 STC 318. We have perused the said j dgment. Their Lordships of the Delhi High Court foll ng the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Polestar Eleckonic Pvt Ltd., vs. Additional Commi sioner, Sales Tax (1978) 41 STC 409 held that the b the other branch of the different entities but the sa nch or the head office or same dealer were not entity. The applicable of the 'D' forms which are imilar to 'C' ' :. a' ':':.;::vt J t.,?: """; not iustified depend on the address s'|ve:#::"i:11""t;lJ: olace where the sale was ; ;;"' -*",'-1""::';;::,':ffi : :;"J defective ln the circumstar that the appellate or the revisional authorities were in refusing to entertain the certificates or 'D' forms This case law squarely applies to the facts of the case of the appellant in as much as M/s Kesoram Cement' Jalgaon being a branch of the appellant cannot be regarded as different from the appellant Hence' we are incllned to hold that the revision fails in respect of Point (b)' ;"""; *" set aside the impugned order'" and circumstances entity.Turningtothefactsoftheappellant'C'formswere

8. From the above decision it is clear that Their Lordships tT'^::] of the Delhi High Court following the decision " clse or cold star Electronic Pvt' Ltd'' vs' ;;;;;" Additional Commissioner' Sales Tax (1978) 41 STC 409 held that the Branch or the Head office or other Branch of *" *r* O""t"r were not different and it is but the same collected from Maharastra but the issuing dealers instead of writing Kesoram Cements' Basantnagar mentioned Kesoram Cements' Jalgam This as per the law quoted is not fatal This is in the nature of technical objection Technicalities and procedural law in our view should not come in the dispensation of justice ln the clrcumstancts we are inclined to hotd that the revision is not legally sustainable and it is liable to be set aside Accordingly we set aside the revision

5. A perustrl of the said frnding given by the STAT reproduced in the preceding paragraph by itself would go to show that the I \ 4 STAT has extensively dealt wi the objection raised by the : petitioner and reached to the said c nclusion. Even in the course of arguments in the instant case, the I ed Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax has not bee able to show any material to point out any irregularity commi d by the STAT or the finding arrived at to be incorrect factually. 6, In view of the aforesaid asons, we do not find any substantial question of law made o by the petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned ord r passed by the STAT. The instant Tax Revision Case thus ls and is accordingly rejected. No costs

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous a plications pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE CO Yil SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5 6 kuliglt The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, P. Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner (CT), arimnagar Division, Karimnagar The Commercial Tax Officer, Pedd One CC to SRI DANTU SRINIVAS( S palli, Karimnagar District. L SC FOR CT) Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI S. DWARAKANATH, A vocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies .it I HIGH COURT DATED:1710212O25 Y o ( ./l o MtlEI21 * s x el- t) r C) + ORDER TREVC.No.6 of 2009 t{L.IECTING THE TRL|VC g /b 2