The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for the State Tax Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Lohith Konda representing Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIII KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TAx REVISION CASE No.269 OF 2009 JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Govemrnent Pleader for the State Tax for the petitioner and Mr. Lohith Konda, learned counsel representing Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a Tax Revision Case filecl by the State Govemment under Section 22(l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, t957 ([or short 'the Act').

3. Challenge is to the order of the learned Sales'Iax Appeltate Tribunal (for short 'STAT') in T.A.No.l20 of 2009, decided on

01.06.2009

4. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had set aside the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as also that of the Assessing Authority. 2

5. The point for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the segregation of the articres purchased by the respondent-assessee as scrap and selling the scrap items independently, will it amount to first sale for the purpose of the product becoming leviable for tax under the Act. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the submissions, put-forth on either side and also on the basis of the materials that were produced before the Tribunal, including the sale bills as also the purchase bills, reached to the concrusion that what was obtained by the respondent_assessee was a scrap and therefore, it cannot be brought within the purview of it being the first sale for attracting tax under the Act and allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner as arso Assessing Authority.

6. The product involved in the instant case is polythene insulated copper cable. The respondent undisputedly is a scrap dealer- He had purchased scrap from the authorized dealers. One of the products purchased was polythene insulated copper cable. Subsequent to the purchase of the said scrap, the respondent-assessee undertook segregation of the insulated copper cable inasmuch as the outer polythene insulation was removed and 3 thereafter, the copper wire was also removed. Both these products were separately sold again as scrap to the next buyers by the respondent-asssesse. [t is this selling of the naked copper wire as scrap and also the peeled off insulated polythene cover of the copper cable which the respondents intended to 5e treated as a fresh product and bringing it under the purview of the definition of 'manufacture' under the provisions of Section 2(f1 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 while levying tax under the Act. The assessment year was 2002-2003. The Assessing Officer's order was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who had also affirmed the order o[ the Assessing Officer which ted to the fiting of the appeal befirre the leamed STAT by the respondent-assessee which stood allowed, against which the State had filed the present Tax Revision (lase.

7. From the flactual matrix which is revealed from the plain reading of the impugned order itself would go to show that though the respondent-assessee initialty could not pnrduce relevant material documents to show that what was purc[ased by them initially was scrap and what has been subsequently sold by them is also a scrap. However, the reading of the order passed by the 4 learned STAT would go to show that the respondent_assessee had been able to produce the purchase bil as arso the sale birt before the Tribunal and on the basis ofwhich the Tribunal was convinced ofthe matter that the product being sold by the respondent-assesse being nothing but only scrap which the respondent had segregated. It was also the categoricar finding of the Tribunal that there does not seem to be a quarrel so far as what was purchased and what was sold both being scrap materials. Under the circumstances, it cannot be treated as product put to sale for the first time.

8. The leamed counsel representing the State only tried to harp on the fact that the respondent-assess@ was not in a position to produce before the authorities materials to show that it was not the first sale that was being made by the respondent-assessee. The said ground and contention of the leamed counsel representing the State however stands discussed and deliberated upon by the Tribunal in paragraph No.4 of its judgment wherein tlrere is a categorical finding that the purchase bilt and the sale bil were produced before the Tribunal by the respondent-assessee which was duly scrutinized by the Tribunal white reaching to the said conclusion. Thus, the ground so raised by the State questioning the order ofthe Tribunal 5 does not have much force of law or on fact to ho]d the finding arrived at to be either erroneous, perverse or contt.ary to facts on record. In the absence of any of the aforesaid grounds, we find it diffrcult to interdict with the order under challenge.

9. Affirming the order of the Tribunal, the instarLt Tax Revision Case fails and is, accordingty, dismissed. There shalt be no order as to costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// , EECTION OFFICER records). loPUcl

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra pradesh, Hydr:rabad.(With 2. One CC to Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government pleitcler for the State Tax 3. One CC to Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies t^ 1M DL HIGH COURT DATED:09/10/2025 JUDGMENT TREVC.No.269 of 2009 DISMISSING THE TAX REVISION CASE 1 ('' \rr \l t.i +(o 1 7 N[\l ?0fi '\.. {-,