The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI DANTU SRINIVAS The Court made the following ORDER: 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOUFABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO N,ANDIKONDA Tax Revision Case No.L72 of 2OO8 ORDER (per lTon'bl.e Si ,lustice P.SAIUI I<OSHY) This Ta-x Revision Case is filed by the pet itioner under Section 22(11 read with Rule 10 of the Andhra Pr:Ldesh General Sales Ta,r Rulr:s, 1957 praying the Court to revise the order dated 08.02 20t18 in T.A.No.532 of 2000 passed b5, the Sales Tax Appeilate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (ibr short, the impugned order'').

2. Heard th,: learned Special Gor.ernment Pleader for the State Ta-x, for -he petitioner; and Mr. Dantu srirLivas, iearned counsel for the re spondent-Asse ssee.

3. Vide tl:e impugned order, the Tribunal has reversed the order passecl b,r the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Ta-x) in G.I.No.1589,193-91 IAPGST, dated 01.08.1995, lr.ho in exercise of power under Section 2O(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (leneral Sales Tax Act. 1957, had modified the said order by adding 15% G.p. to the taxable tlrrnovers of the respondent Assessee.

4. At the oui.set, it has been informed that the order of the Assessing Offic:r is dated 0 1 .08. 1995 and the order of the i , 4 i I i ; I I I : . : i i t i { I I I i i , I i I i I I 2 revisional authority is dated O4.O2.2OOO, ald therefore, the revisional authority had passed the order after expiry of four years. Further, the substantiai challenge by the respondent- Assessee before the Tribunai was that the order passed by the revisional authority dated 04.02.2O00 was otherwise time- barred

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to provisions of Section 3O(3) of the Act which permits the revisional authority to pass an order within a period of four years from the date of receipt of copy of the assessment order, which in the instant case was vaiid up til1

08.02.2000 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (C.T') was one u.hich was passed on O4.O2.2OOO which is well within time limit. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be interdicted for being contrary to the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act.

6. However, perusal of the record particularly the impugned order passed by the Tribunai would clearly reflect that the Tribunal in the course of deciding the appeal Iiled by the respondent-Assessee held that the order passed by the revisional authority would be barred by limitation for the reason that though the order of the revisional authority had been shown to (.- 1t|**,3---*:' ' /. 3 be passed on O4.O2.2OOO, but in fact the sarne had been delivered upon the respondent-Assessee only or-r 23.O2 .2AOO which is much beyond the prescribed llmit. Thr,rs, there is a delay of more than fifteen ( 1 5) days in comm -.i nicating the impugned orde;' to the respondent-Assessee

7. Further, the Tribunal, while considering the question whether the revision was time-barred in the facts and circumstances of the case, has taken into consrideration the decision of the lhen High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M/s.Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. and Punjab Anand Batteries Ltd.1, wherein the High Court in verl, categor-ical terms has held that the larv s;t.ands settled even till the stzrge of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the period of limitation on fc,ur years prescribed by Section 2O(2) of the Act covers the r'vhole proceedings of the revision inclu-d ng passing of the finai order anC of communicating the same pr:on-rptiy to the concerned part\'

8. In the ins;tant case, admittedly there is a dr:1ay of fifteen (15) da1,s in communicating the order passed by the revisiona-l authority clate 'd 04 .O2.2OOO to the respondent Assessee. '(tggs) zo npsr-r o,r (A. F. H.c. ) 4 Therefore, we do not hnd any substantial, cogent material available on record to distinguish that the order of the revisional authority in fact was passed on 04.02.2000, and that it was a-lso dispatched promptiy but could not have been served up till

23.O2.2000.

9. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal by relying upon the judgment in the case of M/s.Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd, (supra) cannot be said to be bad in 1aw or unreasonable in any manner. Therefore, the Revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

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

2. J

4. 5 The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh' Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad The Commercial Tax Officer, R.P. Road Circle , Secunderabad Two CCs to Special Govt. Pleader for Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. DANTU SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies

1. Lr i, ch w i{IGH COURT DATED:03/03/2025 I I R iHi SI4 ,) (-) t * 1 6 ,tllL 2025 z * St)^TC ORDER TREVC.No.172 of 2008 i I I i ; : , : l I)IS\4ISSING I'HE I R( WITIIC)TIT C'OSTS q,e{'a k- ;-rqx