The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. AKRUTI AGARWAL REPRESENTTNG MR. SRI. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL SC. FOR STATE TAX The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY AND TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TREVC No.2ltoF 2008 JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P Sam Koshy) Heard Ms' Akruti Agarwal, leamed counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy' leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla' leamed Speciat Standing Counsel for State Tax for the respondent' Perused the record' 2. The insta.nt tax revision case has been filed by the assessee under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax' 1957 (for short 'the Act')' 3. The challenge is to the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in T'A'No'667 of 2001 decided on t6.07.2008. 4. Vide the said impugned order' the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee affirming the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) dated

26.02.2001. 2

5. The leamed counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that there are two issues which they have primarily raised in the instant tax revision case. Those are as regards the purchase of iron ore from outside the State and whether the said interstate purchase would attract tax under the Act and the second issue was that the use of HSD oil (diesel) purchased by the petitioner at a concessional rate for the transportation of the raw material would attract tax or not.

6. So far as the first point of purchase of iron ore is concerned, the very first paragraph of the order of the leamed STAT itself would go to show that the petitioner themselves in the course of their arguments had given up their challenge so far as the levy of tax on the purchase of iron ore is concerned. For ready reference, paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder: "There are two points on which the appellant has made his submissions before us. On the point of iron ore purchased from other states, the appellant has conceded that even now they did not have the necessary 'C' forms to claim a lower rate of tax. Hence, they did not press the point". I I ; l I I -w ,'{ 3

7. As regards the second issue so far as purchase and use of HSD oil (diesel) by the petitioner is concemed, the contention raised by the petitioner was that they have not travelled beyond the scope of G.O.Ms.No.625 dated 31.07.1996 so fm as the purchase and use of diesel is concemed. According to the petitioner, the diesel that tl.rey had purchased was made use also for the transportation of the raw material i.e., limestone from the quarry to the factory which thus would amount to use of diesel i.e., HSD oil in the manuf-acturing process and thus it was well within the ambit of G.O.Ms.Nct.625 and as such the department ought not to have imposed tax on the said quantity of fuel used for the transportation of the raw material from the quarry to the factory. I{owever, perusal of the records, more particularly the findings given by the Commercial l-ax Officer at the first instance in his order dated

31.03.2000, there is a categorical finding of fact that upon verification of'the relevant books of accounts, general ledger, cash book, purchase bills, sale bills etc., it was found that admittedly the petitioner has provided HSD oil (diesel) to the various transporters fcrr transporting raw material from the quarry to the 4 factory. The officers also found that when the bills were prepared so far as the payment to transporters is concemed, it was found that the assessee has recovered from the transporters the cost of the fuel provided to the transporters for the supply of raw material. Thus, it can be safely construed that the petitioner had not made use of the fuel for the manufacturing process but it used the said fuel for facilitating the transporters in providing the raw material from the quarry to the factory and the petitioner in turn has also charged the transporters for the said fuel consumed by them and it was for this reason that the authorities had reached to the conclusion that the petitioirer would be liable to be taxed on the diesel that was provided to the transporters by the petitioner for transportation of, raw material.

8. We do not find any cogent material made available either before the Commercial Tax Officer or before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and neither before the leamed STAT to show that the petitioner had not charged the transporters for the fuel that was supplied by the petitioner so as to claim the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.625 and also to establish that they are not liable to pay @r' 5 tax so far as the said quantity of fuel provided by the petitioner to the transporte rs is concemed' g. Given ,-he concurrent findings of fact by all the authorities and that ther,: are no strong materials to hold the finding to be erroneous, wt: do not find any merits in the tax revision case filed by the petitioner.

10. The tax revision case fails and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall bt: no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR \fl //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad (with records' if any) 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)' Hyderabad Rural Division, HYderabad

3. The Commercial Tax Officer' Kodad ' Dwarakanagar' 4. One CC to SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPECIAL SC' FOR STATE rAX(OPUc) 6. Two CD CoPies kut/psr tF- I I I I I I i : i j I I I .l t\ 22ffPm \ ,s\ HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 ORDER TREVC.No.211 of 2008 I I I i REJECTING THE TR.EVC WITHOIJT COSTS ?*- VL- d !,i