High Court · 2025

Revision fired Under section 22(1) or, Apcsr Act Riw Rure .10 0f ApGsr Rules' against the orders passed by the sares Tax Appeflate Tribunar, Andhra Pradesh' Hyderabad in T A No 6'r712008, drated 02.12.200g, for the assessment year 2003-2004 (csr - penarty) preferrecr against the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). Hyderrabad Rural Division, Hyderabad rn Rr54r2007-08 & Rr128r2007-08 dated 28.otr.2oo8, preferred against the orders passed by the commercrar rax officer, Fathr:nagar circre, Ranga Reddy District, in Assmnt.No RC.l OBO/2003_04/CST, dated 0g.02.2007. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI SAI AKATRSH, A oorilla, spl. ti.p. 'sst'G'P' Rep' Mr' Swaroop Counset forthe Respondents: TEJpRAKASH TOSHNIWAL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA TAX REVISION CASE Nos.98 &107 of 2009 COMMO N ORDER @er Hon'ble Sri Juslice I'.Sum Kosh)') Heard Mr. K' Sai Akarsh' teamed Assistant Govemment Pleader representing Mr' Srvaroop Oorilla' learned Special GovemmentPteaderforStateTax,appearing[orthepetitionerand Mr. 'lejprakash Toshniwal, leamed counsel lor the respondent' Perused the record. These two tax revision cases have been fited by the State 2. Govemment assailing the orders dated 02'i2'2008 passed in T.A.Nos.6l7 and 618 of 2008 by the leamed Sales Tax Appellate 'fribunal, Andhra Pradesh, H1'derabad' (hereinafter' re lerted as 'Tribunat'). The said two T'As clecided by the Tribunal pertains to the satne assessce fbr two difterent Asscssment years i'e '' 2003-04 and 2004-05.

3. The question of law involved is whether the respondent assessee in fact has misused the "H" Forms that were issucd for the purchase of rarv materials and components' 2 - 4' According to the revenue, wha.t was purchased was not what was exported and thus there is breach of .,Ff, Forms issued to the respondent asscssee

5. lJpon pcrusal of the pleadings that are available on record, what is clearly rellecled is that the re:spondent assessee in fact had obtained "l{,, Fonns fbr the purchase of raw materials and component par.ts consulltable lor manufacture of thns in order to meet the exporl. There is no dispute so far as the purchascs that were made by the respondent assessee and in fact the raw materials and components were purely meant for manufacturing of fans. What is also not in dispute is the fact rihat the respondent assessee has exporled ceiling fans. It is also not in dispute that the ceiling fans exported by the responcient assessee were manuthctured only on assernblinq of'the raw materials and components purchased bv the respondent :rssessee.

6. In the teeth of the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case, if we Iook into thc findings given by the Tribunat, it is clearly reflected that the Tribunal also has appreciated the al.oresaid admitted facttral matrix insolhr as the expoft of fans being made by 3 the resPondent assessee, strictly irom the raw materials and components purchased by the respondent assessee. For readY reference, the operative part of the Tribunal order is reproduced hereinunder ''7. Applying the ratio ol the above judgcment' it is.clear that *h";r;; wls obtained hy M/s Kcdia Electricals trom their ;;;lt;;; *u. i,, tetution'to export' This is an admitted fact u'hich has not been deniej by the Department' The i"p"n"*r,'. contention only has becn that what was nurchased by the appellant was not expo(ed' -rather *^!:l: "rt.i,"", o*'.n"t"tl-Jo'pon".nt parls anJ "-ryl:f^'h: fun W. have also gone through som€ samp,le ]*:l::: submitted for our perusal by the appcllant lhe lnvotccs .i*riy tf."* that ceiling fans were exported by the-appellant i"-"-(t""t down condiiion along with accessories and spare p.a..'Wn", was purchased by the appellant admittedly u'ere raw materials, component parts lor which the appellant issued H Forms to tt.'"it suppli"tt Thus' it can be concluded ;;;;*" was no misuse #h Fot,,'t as the purchases madc f "* were in relation to export of ceiling {ans and iri,fr" some of the spares and component pu1t.*"t". exported as tn view of ttrc above' we are of the opinion that the ,r"f-, lor both the assessment ycars need to be set "fr". ;;;1,}; "td*t aside ancl accordingly we set-aside the orders of the O"p'ty Cottissioner (C1')' Ilyderabad Rural npp"f f "" ijiJiriun' Hyietauua, as well as thc consequential ordcrs passed by thl lower authorities if any" "pp"f

7. What is also clearly reflected is the fact that thc finding ar-rived at try the Tribunat is based upon the j udgment of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v' AzatJ .t *- 4 \- Coach Builders pvt. Ltd.r, wherein, the Hon,ble Supreme Court had decided the similar issue based upon its own ear_lier decision in the case of K. Gopinath Nair v. State of Kerala2, whereby, the two condirions required for rhc appl,icability of Section 5(3) of the CST Act, 1956, be ing, (a) such linality musr rake place after agreement or order under which the goods are to be exported; (b) it must be tirr the purpose of compll.ing with such agreement or export order.

8. In the instant case, rvhen rve look at the purchases and the exports rnade bv the respondent assesriee, there can be no dispute so far as the respondent assessee rneeting the afbresaid two conditions. 9 faking into consideration the afor.esaid factual matrix of the case and also the fact that the i'ribunal having forrified irs finding upon the judicial precedents ol. the tlon.ble Supreme Corrrt, the orders dated 02.12.200g passed by the ,l_ribunal cannot be fbund fault with and the instant trvo.lax Rev ision Cases, being devoid ot. '2ooe 1:,1 scc ::s '1tssz1 ro scc r. I 7 merits, deserves to be and are accordingly rejected' There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. //TRUE GOPY// sd/-Kb?$+Nl[t?&[iR secrffiorrrcen

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal' Andhra Pradesh' Hyderabad' 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)' Hyderabad Rural Division' Hyderabad 3. The Commercial Tax Officer' Fathenagar Circle' Hyderabaed' 4 One CC to SRI TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL Advocate IOPUCI 5. one cc to SRI sAIAKA;lsH' ASST G p 6. Two CD CoPies ' HIGH couRT' Hvd (oPUC) \ To, HIGH COURT DATED:07 t}ttzI}s COMMON ORDER TREVC.Nos.98 & 107 OF 2009 I 1li L cR ^r ..t c C (..r 1E SEF 205 0io REJECTING THE REVISIONS g \2(