The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE P.SAM KOSI tY AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAT,, iTHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE NO.266 OF 2()I 9 ORDER: (P,.r tttr I ttn .lL..tt /r,:ir, t Sri,l/,i1,r I i,ri,r1,,r1lr; li,r,,r fhe instant'l-ax Revision Case is [ilcr'l praying t r revrse the orders Passed by thc Salc.s Iax Apprs 3lc 'Iribur-ral, ,' nrJhra Pradesh, l lvderabad, (S'lAl ), in I.A.No.98Ul2003, datect 01 06 2 )09

2. When the rnattel was taken up for hc.arin;, Mr.-f,Chaitanya Kiran, learnccl Acltlitional (lovcrnmcnt l)lc.rc1t r .rppcarirrg lor pctitioner/ Revt nuc has informerl this Court that .I itlentical issue arising out of the instant Tax Revisiorr Case had alreat . [-rce n l-rc'ard and reserv<,d for orr'lcrs by [his Ccurt in TRC No.55 of .l' ,02. lhc learnc'd Assistant (lovernntent Pleader subrnits that th<' ir-rst. nt Rcvision can also Lrc treatec'l as having becn c-lecicled along with th,'5aid IRC No.55 of 2002 as the facts are sirnila r in na tu re

3. l'his Court utda ordcr datecl 24.01).2025, disr.nissed thtr I'RC No.55 of 2002, and held that "G.C).Ms.No.i' lki,t,ttrrc tlntcd

09.06.1987, tlrcrt, is nct speci.fic cotrdiltt) r os pr,r thc ttttt'ir 1 (,/srrrrs o.f the Act atul ns tLclt, llu' snid C.O., ls gcnentl t'tutrpttott nnLl no sl,t .- fic rtstrictiotts rtr .ondttiotts an prcscrib('tl tLt clnirn suclr axentptitttr.'flttts, rct' I old thtt tlra ordcr of STAT is justified it lrcldtng C,O.lV1s.N0.574 l?,cr.t:true ttatctl 09.06.1987 is l .,1 genernl in nature ."

4. ln view o[ the above subnrissions anc] [or t]re observations alike in the order dated 24.09.2025 in.l RC No.55 of 2002, the instanr Tax Revision Case is also dismissed of in terrns thereof. There shall be no orders as to costs Misccllaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closecl. SO/. P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA OEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 One CC to Mr T Chaitanya Kiran Additional Government Pleader [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies DUPSL M \ \..i I t25?r ,'', . ;r ,' \ / a l',^'.t / ,,' )lj tl .t. HIGH COURT DATED:24tO912025 ORDER TREVC.No.266 of 2009 DISMISSING THE TAX REVISION CASE 0,': ?\ "r'\ TI 3 HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CA sE NO.55 0F 2002 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri lrstice Sudtltlt Chatapattti Rao) The above Tax Rev ision Case is f iled aggrieved by the order dated 27.70.2000 passed b)/ the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabarl (ST'AI) in 7.A.No.793/96, setting asidc the order passct.l by thc Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabacl (Ru ral) Division in Appeal No.R/774/9a-95 dated 04.03 7996 2 The main challenge is rnade in the above revision is, "Whether the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.574 Revenue, dated

09.06.1987 passed under Section 9 of the An$hra pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 (for short, Act) granted exemption to all dealers in respect of inter-state sales under Section 8(2A) of CST Act, 1956." -/

3. The brief facts of the case are tl-rat the assessee are dealers on thc rolls of Commercial Tax Off iccr, Sarrornagar and engaged in business of manufacturing of polystcrinc plastic Granuals and 4 was assessed for the assessment year 1997_92 r rd rvas derried exemption for the said plastic granules t r cler tl-re said C.O.Ms.No.57-l Revenue, dated 09.06.19g7. The.; rl orclcrs rvere confirn'red b1, .Appc.llant Deputy Commissioner (,, I), Hycjerabacl irr Appeal No.R/774/94-95, dated 04.03.1996. I n apl.re::rl rhe S'IAT has passc'd the impugned order under app: rl holding out that the res pon cl e,t/ assessee is entitled to set ofr' r ter-state sares tax paid under CST Act in pursuance of GOMs.N _- 574 Rcvcnue. dated 09.06.'t987 '+. The r-rrai. contention of the rearned Assisrar r Go'e rnnrcrrt Plcader (Taxes) is that G.O.Ms.No.574 datecl 09 r1 ,.19g7 is not gerrer.l in nature and that it is conditional. Il- th r co.ditions nrt'nti.ned in trade are fulfilled, only then the asse; g:e c.rrr ar,,ril the benefit.r-rt.i tht'sanre. It is further conte.detl tt at the srAT u.tler errore.us 'iew and facts has set-aside the l.t I co.sicie*,cj juclgnrents of the Appellate Deputy Comrry. ir-uer dnr.l c..terrded that the .lssessee is not entitled to be st, -ofi f.r the anrount paid unLlcr CST Act in respect of inter_statc s r c,s.

5. [.leard Mr'. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learrreci Assistant Covernrnent Plcarler for petitiorrer/revenue 5

6. On a perusal of the orders passed b1, the STAT, the STAT has allowed the appeal by placing reliance on Hindustan paper Corporation Limited v. State of Kerala and othersr, wherein it was held that exemptions granted under a notification under State law exempting turnover of sales of New,sprint by plant in the State for two years from the date of starting of production, the exemption is available for the inter-state sales also, as the said notification was general in nature. A similar vicw was earlier also taken in M/s. Vinodsolvent Extracts private Limited v. The State of A.P.,2 when the State Government has issued G,O.Ms.No.930 dated 28.07.1977 undcr Section 9(l) of the Act 1957 exernpting 'from the tax payable under the State Act (APGST Act) w.e.f. 07.08.7977, wherein the quesrion of the inter_ state sale of Tapicca Powder affected bv the petiti()ner rt,as ! subjected to tax under the APGST Act, the Divisio. Berrcl-r of this Court has held that the exemption in respect of the said commod ity covered by the G.O.Ms.No.930 dared 28.07.1997 r.r,as . j' a gencral exemption and consequerrtially thc tax pavablc untlcr illter-state sale is also rcquirccl to bc cxcmpted. I (1993) 89 src 473 ': 1989 (8) Apsrj 148 6

7. In the case of Anandi Roller Mitl ; Limited v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes3 also, th,r Hon'ble Apex Court cxamining the G.O., issued under Section ,(1) of the Act, helcl that Sub-section (2) of Section 9 specifies that the t:xemption from tax or intt'rest or reduction in the rate of tax rotified under Sub-section (l), under Clause (a) may extend to tr: whole of the State or kr anv specified area or areas therein, an I under CI.tust, (b) that such eremptior-r or rcduction may su lect to such restrrctions.rnd conditions as may be specified in tl e notification be.rlso appllr;2[rlc to inter-state sales.

8. As secn from Sub_section (1) of Section 9, i: provides for exemption in rt.spect of tax payable by any spcc i ,ied class of persons; h.hereas Sub-section (2) provides specifrc Irestrictions and corrditior-rs for grant of exernption or.reduction rr the rates of tax The Hon'ble Apex court herd that the Governr rcrrt ()rtrers issuecl in G.().Ms.No.377 to benefit specified .rur: 1 ersons viz., Iloller Floor lv{ills, as provicled under Sectiorr 9(1) (ii of the Act altd there is no refcrence to any specified rcsl.rctions or c.nditio*s up(). compliarcc .f l'hich, the Rollcr ljr.c r Mills are ro, rMANU/API1360/2001 7 entitled to the exemption. Further, though the cxemption is available only for five years. Such exemption for a limited period cannot be construed as a restricted or conclitional exenrption. When once the exemption granted under Sectiorr 9(l ) of the APCST Act is of general in nature, then it has to be construed that such a benefit would also be available to the inter_state transactions

9. The appropriate provision in CST Acr is Section g(2A), n,hich is reproduced as under for the benefit of appreciation and proper understanding. "Scctr<rn 8 Ratc of tax on sales in thc coursc o[ intcr-Statt. trarlc or commerce - (1) (2) (u). (b) a (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub_section (lA) of !C!q'n t, or Sub-section (1) or Clause (b) of Sub_section (2) oi thrs scction, thc tax payable undcr this Act bv.r dealer on his tunro\.cr in so far as Lhe turnover or anv part thercctf relates to the s.]le ot any goods, the sale or, as the casc ntay bc, the pu rch.r scfi'f whrch is, under thc sales tax law of the appropriatc State, exenrpf fronr ta\ gcnerallv or subiect to tax generallv at a ratc w,hich is loncr than four pcr cent whether called a tax or fee or bv anY other nanrc. shall Lre nil, or as the case mav be, shall be calculatetj at the loh.cr ratc. 8 10 "r.,n "*,,.r E]p]4nariorr l-'or thc purposcs of thls sub_sectlon a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be dcemcd to U" i f.,rni ,u* gcncrallv unclcr thc salcs tax lan, of the appropriat(, S,, ., ii,,^i". tt,at lan thc s.rlc or purchasc t,t such floods ,. ,, ,rnlu-U, specrficd circrrrnstanccs or undcr specificci conditio.. l if.r" i,; ,. lcvicd on thc s.tlc or purchasc of such gotrds at spccifr,, ,toe"r'o. oth(,r r., r n lh,r rr r,. r tlr rr,[r.r,,nc(, to I lre tuinovcr ol,i,]..;,,1 . . Perusal of Sub-section (2- A) ofsection g of r IST Act, holds that the said scctior.r begins with non_obstantc lause, which shows that the said provision overrides any ct rer provision contrar), to it. A perusal of explanation under thc sr cl sub_section shows tha t it n,as explained as what is me,r rt u nder by 'exemption fror-n t.tx genL,r.rlly, under the sales ta < Iarv of the appropriate Stittc. firom thc;rbove consideration ()f r (planation, it is clear that exerlptioll shall not be considere(l exentptiolt, if thc exernprtion is granted onl), circurnstaltces or urtrler specified corlditlons. S a Sencral specified a

11. On a plain r('dding of Sectiorl 9 together wit I sub_section (2-A) of Section I of CST Act and explanation, ler specificcl restrictions or conditions.lrc contemplatecl under the , lause (b) of Scctiorr 9(2) of the Act. In the ir.rstant vien, of he mattcr, G.O.Ms.No.574 Revc.uue tlated 09.06.19g7, therc specific conditions envisalie(l uncL.r thc abovc provisions of ltL_ Act As rs 10 i I such, the said C.O., is general exemption anc_l no specific restrictions or conditions are prescribed to claim such exemption. 12. Hence the said C.O.Ms.No.574 dared 09.06.-19g7 is general in naturc granting exen-rption to alr the dearers on whom t.x is levied for sale of plastic and plastic articles in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner/revenue has not showed any condition stipulated in the said G.O.Ms.No.574 Revenue dated 09.06.19g7 to hold that said G.O. is conditional and not general exemption. Thus, we hold that the order of STAT is justified in holding that C.O Ms.No.574 Revenue dated 09.06.19g7 is general exemption.

13. Therefore, in view of the above, the Tax Revision Case fails and is hereby dismissed by con_firming the order passed bv the Sales -fax Appellare Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.1.No.793/96, dated 27.10.2000. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. I P.SAM KOSHY,I SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, I Date:24.09.2025 KKM