The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.S. Srinivasa lyengar Counsel forthe Respondent: SPL Standing Counsel The Court made the following: ORDER i i I I I I l l I I I I I r THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA . TRC. No. 2O8 of 2OO3 ORDER:(per the Hon'ble Si Justice T.Vinod. Kumar) This Tax Revision Case is hled by the assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal), dt.3o.12.1995 in TA.No.462 of 1996, for Lhe assessment year l99I-92 under the APGST Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, iearned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent_State and perused the record.

3. PeLitioner contends that it is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Ofhcer(CTO), SD Road, Secunderabad; that on the CTO passing an order of assessment in its lavour, the Deputy Commissioner(CT), punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, in exercise of its revisional power has revised the said order of assessment. whereby the revisional authoritSr had held that the gross profit of 21oh adopted by the assessing authority on the value of inter_state goods purchased to arrive at Ilrst sale turnover of the petitioner in the State to be 7 incorrect estimation and in its place has adopted 75% to the gross profit purchase value for the year l99l-92'

4. Petitioner contends that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Punjagutta Division, adopting 7 5o/o as its proht, and also lelying tax on packing material, and rate of tax, it had frled appeai before the Tribunal, uide TA.No.462 ol 1996; that the Tribunal by order' dt.30.12.1995, while aliowing the claim of the appeliant with regard to the rate of tax, insofar as percentage of profit had held that the appellant did not dispute [he hgures adopted by the revisional authority in arriving at the taxable amount except addition of proht amount, and therefore addition of 7 Soh as gross proht by the revisional authority is not incorrect; and that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tribunal to the extent it had conhrmed the order of revisional authority with regard to gross profit, the petitioner-assessee had preferred the present revision before this Court. 5 We have taken note of the respective contentions urged'

6. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the 75oh of profit adopted and applied by both the revisional authority and Tribunal are exorbitant and unsustainable' as the petitioner is required to meet various expenses relating to post- I l I i i I \ \ 'r';F+=7 ,.,/ 3 sale like maintenance, services, etc., and if the said expenses are considered, the reasonable profit earned would be 21ok only, the revisional authoriff as welr as the Tribunar in their orders have categorically noted that the petitioner did not give any figures as to rvhaL amounL it realized by way of sale in respect of items purchased by it wirhin the State and outside the State. 7 . The Tribunal while considering [he contentions of the petitioner also noLed that while the books of accounts of the petitioner showed the purchase materials being valued at Rs.4,O4,94,495/ , the corresponding realization of sale to be in a sum of Rs.7 ,OZ ,41 ,7 4g / _.

8. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner did not dispute the sale value shown in its books or the figures adopted by the revisional auLhority H/hile revrsing the order of assessing authority. 9 ' Though on beharf of the petitioner it is contended that the revisional arLthority erred in adding 75yo gross profit to the purchase value to arrive at the sale value, since, the said value includes the post-sale activities, which the petitioner would be required to undertake, and such expenses are to be deducted to arrive at the reasonable profit margin, the Tribunal on the other hand ha}oted that the appellant has not been able to produce l j 4 anyCaiculationaboutwhattypeofprofitithadadopted earlier years to claim that the addition of gross prof:t @ 75o/o Lo the Purchase vaiue bY the revisional aulhority, to be high and 1n incorrect

10. [n the absence o[ the petiLione r establishing as to what is the percentage of profit it had adopted during the earlier ycars in comparison to the profit of the subject assessment-year' the revisional authority is left with no option except taking the value of its purchase as recorded in its books of accounts and the value of sales also as recorded in its books of accounts' to arrive at the Proht Percentage'

11. The Tribunal had further notcd that the petitioner having not shown any basis to adopt a lower percentage of profit' the order of the revisional authority was sustained' 12. Even before us' the petilioner has not been able to show that the sald conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal to be wrong' 13. Further, as the said hnding of the Tribunal is clearly a Court in exercise of its revisional finding of fact, and this 22 of tLie Act can onlY go into jurisdiction under Section question of 1aw, cannot deal u'ith hnding of fact I I ' ;.. ery-===ts 5 I I I I I

14. Inasmuch as the Tribunal had found the petitioner having failed to demonstrate as to the percentage of prolit in the earlier years and also noting that the petitioner did not dispute the correctness of the figures adopted by the revisional authority, the addition of T 5o/o as gross profit, the said finding cannot be said as either erroneous or incorrect. Since, the said finding of the Tribunal being a hnding of [act, in the considered view of this Court the present revision does not raisc any question of law to be decided by this Court in exercise of revisional powers under the Act. 15 Accordingly, the present TIiC fails and is dismissed No order as to costs. Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. //TRUE COPY// SD/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR ).-; trdN SEC OFFICER To, Kam/gh

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri [\il.S. Srinivasa lyengar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two ccs to speciar standing counser , High court for the state of rerangana 4. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad lOUTl HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ( o\r. c S f;17 o () 18 AIJE zffi c rt -;... a,..'rtsr t)/ i'i \"t ./ ORDER TRC.No.208 of 2003 DISMISSING OF TAX REVISION CASE