The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri SIDDARTH GILDA, REPRESENTING SRI. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA The Court made the following ORDER: ,) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION CASE No.2OO of 2OO8 ORDER: ber the Ho^'ble Si Justice P. Sam Koshg) The instant Tax Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner under Section 22(I\ of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the APGST ActJ challenging the order dated

15.07.2008, in T.A.No.672 of 2OOl, passed by Sales Tax Appellate Tiibunal, Hyderabad (for short, the 'STAT').

2. Heard Mr. Siddarth Gilda, learned counsel, representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, arrd Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel for the respondent Department.

3. Vide the impugned order; the STAT has affirmed the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, dated

26.O2.2OO1, in Appeal No.N/318/99-2OOO, who in turn had affirmed the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad, for the assessment year 1999-2000 so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned.

4. The penalty was imposed as there as a delay of eight (O8) days on the part of the petitioner in submitting his assessment and for the I ...: reason that there was eight (08) days delay; pena-lty was imposed in accordance with Section 15(a) of the APGST Act. The said order stood affrrmed up till the stage of STAT, leading to filing of the instant petition.

5. The question of law to be considered in this petition is 'whether the STAT was justified in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 15(a) of the APGST Act, though there was no absolute failure on the part of the petitioner in remitting the taxes?"

6. We find that the said question of law already stands answered in a Tax Revision Case liled by the Government itself i.e. Tax Revision Case No.1l of 2OO7 and Batch, decided on 30.08.2023. ln the said judgment, the Dirrision Bench of this High Court in paragraph Nos. 18 to 20 has held as under, viz., "18. Upon considering tlrc fi"ndings of the Tibunal, tue further find it fit to take note of the pou-ters of the Appellote Tibunal os hns been en shined in Section 21ft) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957. On a plain reading of the aforesaid prouision clearlg indicotes that the stotute itself prouides uLide potuers to the Tribunal uhile LLeaing the appeal and they houe got the pouers as under: "S-21 .appeal to the AppeLlate Tribunal : (1) to (3) xxxx (4) The AppeLlate Tribunal mag, afier giuing both parties to the appeol a reasonabl.e opportunity of being trcard- (i) Confinn, reduce, enlnanrce or annul the qssessment or the penaltg or both; or i I (ii) Set aside the assessment or the penalty, or botl4 and direct the ossessing outLnity to pass a fresh order ofter such further inquiry as maA be directed; or (iit) ..

19. Giuen the said statutory prouisions and pouters conferred upon the TibunaL, it utas uithin the pouers of the Tribunal to look into the ieasons tohich preuented th,e assessee in ttmelg pagment of tox and th.e delag also utas too start a period so as to infer that the deLag uas utith ang mala Jide intention.

20. Another fact u.thich needs consideration is tLrc fact that penalty imposed i.s inuoking the prouisions under Section 15(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The prouiso to the said Section clearlg indicates that before passing of an order of penaltg, the authoritg concented is required to issze a notice to th.e assessee seeking his explanation as to the cause uhich led to the delaged pagment of tax. The uery insertion of the aforesaid Section 15(4) pre-supposes that upon o notice being issued before penalty orders are passed, if the assessee u.tas able to prouide plausible and justiftable reasons uhich led to the delaged payment of tox it u.'ould be then uithin the dAcretion of the authoritg to decide u-th-ether penaltg at all is to be leuied.' I I 7 . Taking into consideration the aforesaid factua-l matrix, as a-lso the statutory provisions and also taking note of the fact that the delay on the part of the petitioner herein in making assessment was only a period of eight (08) days, the authority concerned ought to have taken a liberal view

8. Considering the powers which have been conferred r-rpon the authority concerned i.e. proviso to Section 15(a) of the APGST Act, so also the power which is conferred upon STAT under Section 21 of the APGST Act, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order ( r-) would not be sustainable and the same stands set aside / quashed. The order ofpenalty as a consequence, also is set aside.

9. The Tax Revision Case is accordingly allowed. No costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand l closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warangat 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Narasampet. 4. One CC to SRl. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to SRl. K. RAJI REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:]12'o212025 ORDER TREVC.No.200 of 2008 { i tI JuN ?nffi * oES PAT 1., c.: -\ ALLOWING THE TREVC WITHOUT COSTS