The State of Telangana v. PUTTAMREDDY

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Tarun Chadha, t""rnia Counsel representing SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY The Court made the following: ORDER 1'HF] T{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I :OSHY AND TTIE T{ONOTJRABLE SR] JUSTICE SUDDALA CH.\ -APATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.3 of 202-5 ORDER, (per lktn'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assist Lnt Government Plcader reprcsenting Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, L, arned Special (iovcrnmenl Plcader fbr State Tax, for the petitior r r and Mr.Tarun Chadha, learned counsel representing Mr.Karthik tamana Puttam Redd1,, learned counsel for the respondent and pen r :d the record

#2. Tl.re ir.rstanl. 'l'ax Revision Case has been p 'efen'ed by the State Government assailing the order dated 30.1(.1023 passed by the 'l elangana VAT Appellate Tribunal ("the rAT Appellate -fribunal"), 'lelangana, Hyderabad in T.A.No. 172 cl 2012

#3. For propel understanding of tl-re case, i- is relevant to reproduce thc relevant portion of the order pas:r C by the VAT Appellate Tribunal, rvhich reads thus: -'ln vicrv of the above, we concludt, that the amounts arc liable for exemption on Imp|: lentation chargcs and rvith rcspect to Professional 'ees ArchitcctLue lbr lnternet banking are consider: I as prc- salc crpcnditurc and thc |gvy oltax is upheld.'' 2 4 It is pertinent to mention that the appeal before the VAT Appellate Tribunal was prefened by the respondetrt-Assessce being aggrieved by the' order passed by the revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner (CT), (Legai), Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, dated 21.01.2012. The appeal which the respondent-assessee had prcferred before the VAT Appellate Tribunal was on the follor,'ing grounds: a) Profbssion Fces for complete study b) Architecture lor Internet banking Whereas, the revisional authority had dealt with five issues, those are a) implementation charges b) Professional Fees for complete study c) Architecture for Intemet banking d),al-iving and Travelling expenses e) Customization. 'Ihe revisional authority decided two issues, those are:- a) implementation charges atld b) Living and Travelling expenses in favour of the respondent- assessee. The other three grounds stood decided against the respondent-assessee. He had preferred an appeal only against the Professional Fees for complete study as also the Architecture for lrlternet banking. The issue of Customization-was not challcnged ./ b1' the respondent-assessee before the VAT A1r re[1ate Tlibunal. The VAT Appellate Tr.ibunal was also flot g r en any finding so far as the issue of Customization is concemed. I'he decision of the revisional authority in respect of the issue of (lr stomization has also not becn challcnged by the Revenue before tli : Tribunal. The finding of the levisional authority had thus attaine,l finality.

#5. In vieu, o1- the same, since the Revenue rva r not aggrieved b1, the finding o1'the revisional authority dated '.1.01.2012 and having not challcnged the issue of Customizari rn any turlher bclble the VAT Appellate Tribunal and the r ,A1' Appellate Tribunal having rejected the appeal of the resp: ldent-assessee. Insofar as the issue dealing with professional Fee ; for complete study c) Architecrure fbr Intemet banking is con: :med, it is the respondent-a ssessee rvho has to be aggrieved b;, the in-rpugned order and nol the Revenue. Hence, we are not colL. inced with the grounds raised b1- tl-re learned counsel represer t ng the State. However', they have challengcd only the aspect <l1. lustornization charges to the present Tax Revision and the issue vhich was not in lact decided by the VA1'Appe[ate Tribunal. 4

#6. [n view of the s4me, no substantial grounds are made out calling for ir.rterference to the impugned order.

#7. The Tax Revision Case fails and is accordingly rejccted. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR JOINT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

#1. The Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Special Govt Pleader for Commercial Tax, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI KARTHIK RAIMANA PUTTAMREDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I TPKi SA {'( HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 1t\ -) JI I ).. ORDER TREVC.No.3 of 2025 ) ,'t- .. ----.i:' -::-_:: i.i_:)l.i .- i2DECffi !. a- i. I -..Spi, iclrr --_::= \) TAX REVISTON CASE rS REJECI'=D ,tfA WG