High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI L.VENKATESHWAR RAO SPL S.C FOR TAXES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA TRC No.23 3 of 2OO3 ORDER:(per Honble Sri lustice T.Vinod Kumar) This Tax Revision Case is directed against the order dt.2l.02.2003 in T.A.No.588 of 1998 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') for the assessment year 1993-94 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner - assessee and learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner - assessee is that it is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act carrying the business of works contract; and that for the assessment year 1993-94, the jurisdictional assessing authority, i.e. Commercial Tax Officer, S.D.Road Circle, had assessed the petitioner to tax on various turnovers, including levy of turnover tax and surcharge on the exempted turnover of Rs.3,19,39,603/-. 2

4. Petitioner - assessee further contends that thor,rgh Section 5-A of the Act provided for levy of turnover tax for tfre period from

18.07.1993 to 31.03.1994, since, the said Section was omitted from

30.06.1994 without any saving clause in the amendment Act, the assessing authority could not have subjected the petitioner to turnover tax relating to works contract, when the assessing authority had made assessment order on 26.03.1996.

5. It is also the further case cf the petitioner - assessee that aggrieved by the levy of turnover tax for the period fron 18.07.1993 to

31.03.1994, it had filed the first appeal to the appeilato authority and thereafter, a second appeal before the Tribunal.

6. The petitioner - assessee contends that the Tribunal had failed to note that, by amending the Act 22195, the Legislature had omitted Section 5-A of the Act, and in the absence of any saving clause under Act 22195, the levy of tax for the period from t8.07.1993 to

31.03.1994 would not get saved and as such, the assessment order dt.26.03.1996 levying tax on the petitioner under Sectron 5-A of the Act, would be wholly without jurisdiction.

7. Petitioner - assessee contends that since Section 5-A of the Act, which was omittgd under Act 22195, was brought bqck on the statute 3 book again vlde Ac-27196 with effect from 01.07.t994 to 31.03.1995, during the period 18.07.1993 to 31.03.1994 and 01.04.1995 to

30.06.1994, inasmuch the Section itself did not exist, no turnover tax can be levied on the petitioner. B. Per contra, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that by virtue of operation of Section 8 of the Telangana General Clauses Act, 1891, the omission of Section 5-A oF the Act by Act 22195 would not get aFfected and thus, the petitioner is liable to turnover tax under Section 5-A of the Act for the period from 18.07.1993 to 31.03.1994,.

9. Learned Special Standing Counsel would further contend that since, the provision of Section 5-A of the Act existed during the relevant assessment yearlperiod, the same would be applicable, even though the same had been omitted subsequently and it is for the said reason, the assessing authority had imposed the levy which has been affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal.

10. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 1 1. Though on behalf of the revision petitioner - assessee, it is contendE that levy of turnover tax for the period from 18.07.1993 to

31.03.1s9) under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be resorted to as the 4 said provision was repealed subsequently without saving clause, the Tribunal, while dealing with the aforesaid contention, had noted that the assessing authority had levied turnover tax only for the period from

18.07.1993 and not for the whole year and thus, the same has been correctly levied.

12. Before us, on behalf of the petitioner - assessee, it is contended that the Tribunal having failed to deal with the specific contention of the effect of omission without saving clause, wouirj result in as if the said provision did not exist on the statute book at the rolevant point of time for the actions taken thereunder to get saved having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Limited v/s. tlnion of Indil, it is to be noted that the Apex Court in the subseqi-rent decision i'endered rn the case of Fibre Boards (P) Limited v/s. CIte and Shree Bhagwati Ster,l Rolling Mills v/s, CCe, dealing with the effect of 'omission' had dealt with Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and held that the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal. ' atR 2ooo sc 81t '1zors1 ro scc::r '1zote1 : scc ea3 ( ! 5

13. Sections 6 and 6A of the General Clauses Ad, lggl are pari mateia to Sections 8 and 8A of the Telangana General Clauses Act, 1981 (as adopted by the State of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.46 dt.01.06.2016). The Apex Court by its decision in Fibre aoard(2 supra) and Shree Bhagwati Steel Roiling Miils (3 supra) had held the earlier decision in the case of Kothapur Canesugar Works Limitd (l supra) is per incuriam, as the said decision did not consider the effect of Sections 6 and 64 of the General Clauses Ad, lgg7.

14. That being so, the reliance placed by the petitioner _ assessee on the decision of the Apex Cout in Kothapur Canesugar works Limited (l supra) in the considered view of this Court cannot advance its case, in view of the subsequent pronouncements, in the cases of Fibre Board!2 supra) and Shre Bhagwati Steet Ro ing Mi s (3 supra). Thus, this Court is of the considered view that since at the relevant ass€ssment period i.e. from 18.07.1993 to 31.03.1994, as petitioner - assessee was liable to pay turnover tax on its turnover in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, the subsequent omission and re- introduction vik Ad 27/96 would not absolve the tiability of the petitioner to pay the turnover tax. I I I I I 6

15. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view' that the order of the Tribunal in upholding the levy of turnover Lax for the afore- mentioned period cannot be held to be either illegal or perverse'

16. In view of the above, the Tax Revision Case fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

17. Pending miscellaneous petitions. if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. //TRUE COPY'/ SD/. K. SR.INIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER To, t. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (With Records) 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Puniagutta Division, Hyderabad i. The Commercial Tax Officer, S.D.Road Circle, Secunderabad 4. One CC to Sri G.Narendra Chetty, Advocate (OPUC) 5- One CC to Sri L.Venkateswar Rao, Spl.S.C for Taxes (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies Ks/gh w d ( ! 7 o "i ll5 AUC m6 oIISFATcHEt) ; \.,.v2, '\^/ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER TRC.No.233 of 2003 Dismissing the Tax Revision Case Without costs. gc"Q(4 Fr- <flx,