The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran (AGP) representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla (Spl. GP for State Tax) Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Tarun Chadha representing Sri Karthik Ramana Putta4reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY A}{D THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSINIG RAO NANDIKONDA TREVC No.97 OF 2009 JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshl) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, leamed Assistan. Covernment Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oori[[a, learned Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Chadha, learned counsel representing Mr. Karrhill Ramana Puttamreddy, leamed cpunsel tbr the respondent. P::rused the record.

2. The instant is a tax revision case filed by tl.r': State under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and liervices Tax, t957

3. The challenge in this tax revision case is to thc order passed by the Sales Tax Appetlate Tribuna[ in T.A.No.963 of 2002 decided on 02.01 .2009.

4. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal I l r i 2 had set aside the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) holding it to be unsustainable and granting the relief of a concessional rate of tax to the respondent-assessee' The Revenue, in the course of ref'erring the petition, had raised two questions of law: (i) whether lreight charges collected will become part of tumover or not? and (ii) whether the appellant is entitled to avail concessional rate of tax by producing 'D' forms even though he was not a Govemment authoritY?

5. For convenience, we take up question No.2 first as the said issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s AJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJABI had clearly held that a Gram Panchayat would also be a local authority and would fall within the purview of State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of lndia. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also stood further reiterated by the Tribunal in the case of lWs Futani Steels Pvt., Ltd., vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in T.A.No.504 of 2000 dccided on I 1.09.2002 and in the process it has been decided that the sale ol cements made by the cement 'AIR 1967 8556 SC 3 companies to the Zilla Parishads and other local bodies would undoubtedly falt within the purview of sale made to the Statc cntil-ling thenl to avail the concessional rate of tax. l.he sanrc vierv has been recently been taken by this very Bench in 'f REVC No. l01 o12009 which stood decided on I 1.04.2025 reitcr.ar.ing the same view that a sale of cernent made to the Zilla parishaci/ Gram Panchayat and other local bodies would amourt to sale rnade to the State entitling the company to avail the benefit ol-concessional rate of tax. In view of the sanrc. qLrestion No.2 raised in the instant tax revision case also stands, dccided against the Rcvenue.

6. So far as the first question of law as to whcthe,r licight charges collected will become parl of tumover ol. not is concerned, the Tribunal had interfered witlL the said .rder of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner that in fact there were no fi.csh matcrials those were collected for the purpose of rnai<ing the re-assessment. Whatever materials those were relied upon wcre all materials whicl-r were already available on record and which the Assessing Officer also had scrutinized while passi;ig the f-rrst 4 assessmentorder.AccordingtotheTribunal,thenrater.ialswhich were available with the Assessing Oftrcer at the first instance and which in spite of proper scrLltiny cor'rld uot bc rloticed by thc Assessing Officer cannot subsequently be taken to be a fresh material to make a re-assessment 'fhe Tribunal had reached to theconclusionthatintermsolthesaleagrcement'cementtobe sold on ex-work basis and thc appcllant cement comparly is not responsible for the transit risk which is ah'r'ays on the buycr' The freight charges were liable to be taxcd il'the sales reflected on 'for destination basis' wl-rich was not the case of the cotnpany or theRevenueintheinstantcase.Undisputedly,therespondents could not find out any fresh matcr-ials subseqtrctltly uneatlhed nor was there any fresh materials collcctcd liorn tl-re petitioner nor were any fresh material produced betore- the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Rather the Appeltate [)epLrty Conrrnissioner has not taken into consideration any li'es[-r Inaterials lrom the records which had not gone through the eyes ol the Asscssing ofhcer earlier tbr re-assessment. In the itlstant case' all these materials were already available to the respondent with the Assessing Ofhcer having duly submitted by the respondetlt-assessee ' 5 7 . For the said reason, we do not find the firLding of the Appellate Tribunal so far as the freight charges are r:oncemed to be eroneous or bad in taw catting tbr any interferent:e. The said qirestion of law also stands decided in favour of the respondenr assessee and against the petitioner-revenue.

8. The tax revision case accordingly stands rej:cted. There shall be uo order as to costs. Consequently, Iniscellaneous petitions pending, i I any, sha[[ stand closed To, /ffRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR secf$JPdrrrcen

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2. The Appellate. Deputy Commissioner (CT)' Hyderabad' Rural Division' Hyderabad

3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad 4. Two CCs to GP for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

5. One CC to Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, Advocate IOF'UCI 6. Two CD CoPies VH/gh I HIGH COURT DATED: 1510712025 (.o <i r'rc s,,r_.i\ .,!c \') \ 'j\ JUDGMENT TREVC.No.97 of 2009 REJECTING THE TREVC i-. + 0 3 s[P 2U5 .\ ..',...'.',/ p ) w