The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jaiswal The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ) THE HONOTTRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM AND TEE EONOTIRABLE SRI JUSTICE . ST'DDALA CIIALAPATHI RAO m JTIDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshv) I{eard Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Govemment Pleader for the State Tax for the petitioner and Mr. A'K'Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. llhe instant is a tax revision case filed by the State assailing the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No.440 of 1998 ot 16.01.2022-

3. fhe issue involved in the instant case was prirnarily that of certain excess tax collected by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,12,655/-. The challenge before the Tribunal was to the suo moilt revisional powers exercised by the Revisional Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner (CT) vide his revisional order dated

20.04.11)98. The revisional authority had reached to the conclusion that thr: respondent-assessee has collected an excess tax of Rs.3,12,655/- from the customers which was ordered to be forefeitrd. 2

4. However, when the said revisional authority's order was put to challenge before the Tribunal by way ofTribunal Appeal by the respondent-assessee in Tribunal Appeal No.440 of 1998, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the revisional authority has failed to take note ofthe clarification and the explanation that the respondent-assessee had made so far as the so called collection of ex@ss tax is concemed.

5. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, particularly its finding part which, for ready reference, rF reproduced hereunder: "...A perusal of this provisions indicates that a dealer should not collect towards tax from .the customers more amount than what is already paid by the dealer at the time of purchase if any and also payable by him on the sales made by him. Thus, in considering whether any excess tax is collected by the dealer which is liable for forfefture U/s. 30(c) of APGST Act, the total amount paid by him at the time of purchase and payable by him at the time of sale, both have to be taken into acoount and the tax collected from the customer at the time of sale should not exceed as per this provisions the amount of tax already paid by the dealer at the time of purchase and payable by him on the sales made by him, both put together. Applying this provision to the facts of the present case, the dealer categorically mentioned in his reply to the showcase notice issued by the Depug Commissioner proposing the revision that he paid Rs.5,1 7,238-00 at the time of purchase of crllde oil I 3 him i.e., Rs. to verious dealers and also Pakl Rs.2,47,328-00 the sales effected bY him along with monthly A2 retums. He states further in the reply that thus the total payment made bY if on both the counts i.e., on M retums @mes to purchase and Rs. 7,64,561-00 whereas he collected onlY Rs.5,54,774-00 resulting in the short collection of Rs.2,09,787-00. But, the deputy Commissioner faited to refer and consider to this ples raised bY the appellant in his reply to the show cause notices and enoneouslY took into account only what is payable by the apPellant on the sale of refined oil 2,42,19940. Thus, he made bY completely ignored provisions of Sec. 308 (2) of APGST Act which provides for taking into account the tax alreadY paid by the dealer at that time of purchase and enoneouslY held that the appellant collected excess tax than what he is liable to PaY. A reading of Sec, 308(2) indicates that the dealer is to collect not onlY sales tax payable bY him on the sales made bY him but also the tax alreadY paid by him at the time of Purchase . Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present case show that the appellant has not collected tax from the customers on the sales of refined oil anything execss than what he is entitled to collect and what he has collected is not excess tax as Per Sec. Act. Thus, we come to the 3o(B(2) of APGST conclusion that the DePutY Commissioner erred in holding that the appellant collected excess tax of forfeited the same. Rs.3,12,655-00 and ure hold that the imPugned order of revision made bY the DePutY Commissioner is not proper and valid and the same is liable to be set- aside"

6. .A plain reading of the aforesaid hnding given by the Tribunail would give a clear indication that the Tribunal has taken the frctual aspects which the assessee has explained by way ofresponse to the show cause notice and which I 4 has not been considered in the revisional order nor has it been deliberated or discussed upon. The Tribunal also found that the assess@ has given a reasonable explanation so far as the so called excess collection of tax is concerned and which has not been in any manner found to be either erroneous, false or incorrect by the revisional authority.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader representiag the petitioner also was not in a position to give explanation as to the finding so arived at by the Tribunal while referring the order of the revisional authority.

8. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the tax revision case and the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD'. R.KARTHIKEYAN tItrGIEfiiEI-il //TRUE COPY" To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, OFFICER .(with records, if any)

2. Two CCs to GP FOR TAXES, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl

3. One CC to Mr. A.K. Jaiswal, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL M. HIGH COURT ATED:2110812025 ) JUDGMENT TRC.No.9O of 2003 (., 3 .-'l ,rti I l{j26 * t REJECTING THE TAX REVISION CASE 0,,tl \l \2