The State ofAndhra Pradesh M/s.Sri Sai Cold Storage v. I I

REPRESENTING SRI SWAROOP OORILIA, SPL GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: ORDER IIT THE HIGH OOI'RT FOR THE STATI OF jrELAIYGIINA ATETDERABAI) , TIIE HOITOI'RABI.T SRI JI'STICE P.SAM KOSHY AITD TIIE HOITOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SI'DDAI,A CHALIIPATHI RAO Tar Revlslon Case No.158 of2olo Date of Ordet: 17.12.20/25 BEIWETT: The State ofAndhra Pradesh M/s.Sri Sai Cold Storage Vs. I I . . . Petitioner ...Respondent ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justi@ P.SAM KOSHE) When lhe matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had informed the court that ttre issue raised in the present Tax Revisio. case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Division Bench in Tax Revision Case No. 1OO of 2OlO, dated

15.L2.2iA25.

2. This Court, having perused the.record, is of the considered view that the issue raised in the present Tax Revision Case is squarely covered by l:he order passed by this Division Bench in Tax Revision Case No. lOCr of 2O1O, dated 15. 12.2025. Therefore, following the said Page2 of2 ;'l order and for reasons alike, the instant Til( devoid of merits, deserves to be and is costs. Revision Case also being acrordingly. dismissed. No

3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendiqg if any, shall stand closed. \ /,TRUE COPYII SD/. N SRIHARI. OFFICER To, 1' The sares lal Appertate Tribunar, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad 2- one cc to lri swaroop ooritta, sprGp ior staiJrax, Advocate topucl 3. One CC to Sf J V Rao, aAvoLte tOpUCl -"r 4. Two CD Copies ABK /ABK HIGH COUTTT DATED: 1711212025 ORDER TREVC.No.'|58 of 2010 3 06 ttB 2020 * DISMISSING THE TREVC WTHOUT COSTS @- aolrlae IN TEE EIGH COI.IRT T1OR TEE STATE OF TELANGANA ATEYDERABN) TEE EONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AIYD TEE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE ST'DDALA CEALAPATEI RAO Between: The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep.by the State Representative before STAT, D.No.54404 ro 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. AND lvIls.Sai teeta Cold Storage, Grain Market Road, Khammam, Khammam District. Petitioner Respondent COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader representing Mr.Swanrop Oorilla, learned Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.J.V.Rao, leamed counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 2 1, . .- 2. These two Tax Revision Cases are inrrolvid' r.u*" 1 . ..., .;l question of law raised by the state white assaiting the:tw-oorders passed by the srAT. we proceed to decide these two cases. by a .: '... ,.'.,,- , common order.

3. TREVC.No.9 of 2010 is a petition assailing ,thg.Order of s'tAT dated 09.02.20f,l9 in T.A.No.606 of 2003. TREVC.No.I0O ol'2010 is a petition by the state Governrnent assailing the order of S'[AT dated 0g.02.2009 in T.A.No .t28gof 2003.

4. The issue involved in both these Tax Revision cases is that demand of penalty raised by the Department on the alleged misuse of the c-Form at the hands of the responden{s - assessee for the purpose sf construction of the Cold Storage.

5. The Assessi'rg Authority initiated penalty proceedings ag;ainst the respondents - assessee contending that the respondents - assessee feet that they were not in the course of .or,rtn ction of a manufacturing unit but were only constructing a cold Storage to 3 make use of C-Forms issued in their favour for the purpose of all materials at tlre concessional price. The Assessing Officer at the first instance vide his order dated 06.01.1999 and ll05.l998 respectively in the two Revision P€titions passed the order of penalty impoqlng maximum peoalty permissible:under the statute to the tune of Rs.2,M,605/- and Rs.2,46,910/- in the two assessment The respondenfs - assessee, thereafter, immediately preferred an appeal before the Appetlate Deputy Commissioner.

6. The Appellate DeputY in the course of deciding the two appeals vide the respective orders dated l7.O4.lggg and 21.05.1999, after hearing the representatives of both the sides, reached to a conclusion that the respondents - assess@ were under the bonafide belief of the Cold Storage which they were conshucting also would be treated as a unit and in the process, they used the C-Forms for the ptrrpose of purchasing materials at a concessional price- The Appellate Deputy also reached to the conclusion that irrmediately upon the fact being brought to the ootice of respondents - assessee' 4 they had immediately accepted their fault and therefore presumed that the respondents - assessee must have made good the differences if any and therefore the Appellate Tribunal considering the act on the part of the respondents - assessee to be one under bonafide belief and with no ill-will or bad htentioq reversed order of Assessing Authority while atlowing the appeal.

7. The order of Appellate Authority, however, was subsequently reversed by the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 04.04.2003 and 12.05.2003 respectively. It was this order of Revisional Authority which was suhjected to challenge before SIAT in the T.A.Nos.606 of 2003 and l2g9 of 2003 respectively. Both of which have been decided in favour of respondents _ ar;sessee vrZe order dated 09.02.2N9 -

8. Having heard the leamed counsel for the petitioner and hving perused the orders particularly the detailed order passed by the STAT reversing the order passed by the Revisional Authority and while affirming the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, we find that the Tribunal also has taken note of the 5 fact that the element of mens rea was not clearly establi$ed by the said authorities before imposing the order of pe,nalty boffi by the Assessing Authority at the first instance as also by the Revisional Authority subsequently. The Tribuual relying upon the judicial prrcedeutS so far as of element. of mens rea it he course of imFosing penalty, had reversed the order of Revisional Authority in both these Tax Revision Cases. There does not seem to be any'strong material by the petitioner - State with which it would had been reflected ttrat the finding given by the Tribunal to be either perverse or conEary to the settled legal position.

9. In the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any merits in the petition which the State has preferred. Another reason which falts in the mind of the Bench not to interfere with the impugned order is the amount of penalty first of all 150% that has been levied and secondly, the amount involved also is too meager fuL both these Tax Revision Cases. For that reason also these Tax Revision Cases stands dismissed. 6

10. Accordingly, both the Tax Revision Cases stand d:ismissed. consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sharl stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. P.SAM KOSEY" J t.t.12.202s IIliflll SI,DDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J