The High Court · 2025

M/s. Tirumula Srinivasa Commercial Corporation, Sagar Road Miryalaguda-SO8 217. ...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader for State Tax Counsel forthe Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGII COTJRT FOR TIIE STATE OF TI., ,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THB HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I( OSIIY AND TIIE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICt, SUDDALA CI IALAPATII I RAO Tax Revision Case No.l33 of 2010 Datcd: 15.12.2025 Between Thc State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by the State Representative before STAT, D.No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Anclhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. AND M/s.Tirumala Srinivasa CommcrciaI Corporation, Sagar Raod, Miryalaguda 508 217. Pctitioner lespondent OITDER: @cr llon'l,lc Sri Ju.rticc l' &tn Kosln') Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant ( iovcrnment Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, lean t d Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing fbr the pt t tioncr.

2. The instant is the Tax llevision Case flled by tl't petitioner- State Governnrent under Section 22(l) read rvith I trle l0 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for shcr "the GST Act"). The orcler under challenge is that ol the Tril rrnal dated 2

23.06.2009 in T.A.No.3g6/2004 which has partly allowed the appeal so as to inclusion of Rural Development Cess being treated as same component lor the purpose of [evying of tax. 3. Vide tl.re inrpugned orcicr, the Tribunal had parlly allowed the appeal pref-erred by the respondent_Assessee and partly dismissed the same. There w.cre two questions of law which stood decided by the Tribunal. 4. The prescnt is the Tax ltevision Casc which had been flleil assailing thc only question ol'Iaw which stood decided against the Revenue i.e., question No. I . 'l'hc question No.l decided was whether collection of salcs Tax lcvied on Rural Developrnent Cess component is enforceablc in terrns of G.O.Ms.Nos.95 I and 952, dated 10.09.2003.

5. For bettcr understanding ol the question raised by the State Govemrnent in the present Tax Revision Case, it would be rnore appropliate if we rcfer to C.O.Ms.Nos.95 i and 952 which for ready rcfercnce reproduced hercu nder: .. APGST Act. I957-Excntption from levy of sales tax on the Rural Dcvelopnrcnt Cess component_Notification issucd. (G.O.Ms.No.95l, Revenue Dr.10.09.2003) (CT-II) Department, I I 3 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by sub sec'i rn ( l) of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales l r r Act, 1957 (Act VI of 1957), the Govemor of Andhra l'adcsh hereby grants exemption from the levy of sales ta\ ,,n thc Rural Development Cess component of the purchas,) \,alue o1'Paddy by the Rice Millers, under the said Act. Principal Secretary to t ovcrnmenl. N.S.[Iarilr rran. (4) G.O.Ms.No.952, Revenue (C'l'-l!) )cpt., Dr.10.9.2003. ".4..P.Rural Dcvelopment Cess Act, 1996- Waiver of demand relating to levy of lural Development Cess on actual purchasc I'r'iccs paid by millers over and abovc minimum su )port price o{ paddy and also thc outstanding ar rcars torvards sales tax on Rural Development Ccss component till datc-Orders-Issued. ORDER The Govemment herebv waive the outstu Iding demand relatins to levy of Rural Develor;mcr t Ccss on actual ourchas e Drtces paid bv rnillers ov:' ancl above minimum support price ol paddyanda:othe outstand ing arrears towards sales tax on I ural Develo ment Cess comDonent ol Purch ase ViIreol Paddv. till date. (em phasis added). 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is requested necessary action, accordingly. la.xes, t() take (By order and in the name of Governor of Arr lhra Pradesh). N.S. Hariharan, Principal Sccretary to (lo crnment." 4 l

6. A plain reading of two G.Os would emphatically make things clear that so far as G.O.Ms.No.95 l, dated 10.09.2023 is concerned there was a clear excmption granted by the State Government from the levy of- sales tax on the Rur.al Dcvelopment Cess component on the purchase value of paddy by the rice miller which makcs the eff'ect and operation of G.Os. jurisdiction with effect frorn I 0.09.2003.

7. Now coming to G.O.Ms.No.952, datecl 10.09.2003, a reading of the sarne again would make it emphatically clear that by this G.O. the Govelnment infact intendecl to waive the recovery of arrears towards sales tax on Rur.al Development Cess component on the purchase value of pacidy, till date i.e. the date on which it is published which in the instant case was 10.09.2003. This in other way means the effect of G.O.Ms.NO.952 is granting of exemption or waiver forthe previous years also. It is this tact which has been taken note of by the Tribunal in ihe course of allowing the revision petitions in favour of the assessee. There does noi seem to be any good ground raised by the State Governmcnt to show that the finding so anived at by the TribunaI is contrary to the intention of the Governrrent in the coursc of passing of afbrcsaid mentioned 5 two G.Os i.e. G.O.Ms.No.951 and 952, dated 10 09 2C( i No case has been made out by the State Govemment to shov that there were any other G.Os. issued by the Government u'i I which tlie Government could have levied either sales tax or :oulcl have recovered the arrears of the sales tax on the Rural ll:velopment Cess component. Moreover, the said hnding given by he Tribunal is strictly analyzing two G.Os which makes the finl ng of fact, which gives minimal scope of interference under Secti' 'n 22 of thc GST Act. We do not find any case made calling lol iLrl :rlerence to the impugned order

8. The Tax Revision Case referred by the pet tioner-State accordingly stand rejected and the question of law dt:r ided by thc Tribunal stands aff irmed Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. f any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. SRIHARI DI PUTY REGISTRAR r' i(J To, //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER 1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Prades r' Hyderabad (with 2. One CC to Mi. Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government F leader for State Tax records, if anY) IoPUCI

3. Two CD CoPies KAM/Sa ,M. HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 511212025 ORDER TREVC.No.133 of 2010 ()t .:.. ) iiE S{q 3 JAil 2l[6 I 7 Z. c) :sPATC * ) DISMISSING THE TAX REVISION CASE f, \v 3\