High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particurarrf a writ in nature of Mandamus declaring the order of assessment dt. 30-.1 1_2002 (Ex_p 1) as illegal, without jurisdiction and hence inoperative, and at any rate contrary to G.o.Ms, No. 97 Revenue dt 25-1-2003' and accordingry, set aside the same (ii) direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioners apprication dt 21-1-2oog expeditiousry and (iii) interdict the respondent from enforcing the demand dt 30_11_2007. t.A. NO: 10F 2008 WPMP. NO:1879 F 2008 Petition under Section r s 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of collection of disputed rax of Rs. 38,54,g95/- in ptlrsuance of the demand dt 30-11-2007, pending disposat of the Writ petition. -rt * + * t *, t * , F ', *' ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.TEJESWARA RAO, REp. FOR SRI S.CHAKRAPANI Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI T.CHAITANYA KlRl N, AGp, REp. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL, iP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 1577 OF 2008 Between: M/s. Attari Aluminium, 1-B-303t48t47 11, Ground Floor iurbhi crest, Minister Road, Secunderabad-S00 003, rep by its partner, nrpan I Agarwll. - AND Commercial Tax Officer, MG Road Circle, Secunderabir, ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lnc i r praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the ligh court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particular y a writ in nature of lt/andamus declaring the order of assessment dt 30-11-2ot z (Ex-p1) as illegal, without jurisdiction and hence inoperative, and at any rater 3sn{1s1y to G.O.Ms. No. 97 Revenue dt 25-1-2003, and accordingly, set aside flr r same (ii) direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioners application dt 21 -2oo1 expeditiously and (iii) interdict the respondent from enforcing the demand ( r 3o-11-2007. LA. NO: 1 OF 2008(wPMP. NO:1 907 0F 2008) Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the l rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cour may be pleased to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs. gz ,30,4221- r pursuance of the demand dt3O-11-2007, pending disposal of the Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.TEJESWARA RAO, REp" t: )R SRI S.CHAKRAPANI Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI T.CHA|TANYA KIRAi\ AGp, REp. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. (i ) FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ; i { *" +i. ; *" Ns t *' * * , *, ; *' * *, + s" I IIONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I(OSI{Y AND IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE SI'DDAIII CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PE-TITION Nos.1555 ard 1577 of2OO8 COMMON ORDER:. (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshg) Heard Mr.K.Tejeswara Rao learned counsel representing Mr.S.Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant (]overnment Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondent.

2. The instant Writ Petitions have been filed questioning the assessment order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer refusing to grant lery of tax at the concessional rate on the aluminium products sold by the petitioner inter-state .

3. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer would.go to show that the Assessing Oflicer had refused to leqv La;t- at thg concessional rate as was envisaged trnder G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 25.01-2OO3 holding that the said concessional rate of tax would be applicable only on raw aluminium ald not on any other aluminium products. Hence, relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation v. The State of Uttar Ptadeshl, the Assessing Offrcer had held that the petitioner cannot claim concessional rate of interest on inter state tax on aluminum rods, ' 41- src 147 2 \ prollles, exlrusions, sheets etc., Subsequent to J e passing of the order of the assessment by the Assessing Ofhcer i r ., on 3O. ll.2OO7, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued ar< ther clarificatory Memo No.3164/CT.Il(lll2OO8-1, dated 18.O1.2 )O8. For ready reference, it would be more appropriate if thr: contents of the Clarificatory Memo are reproduced hereuader: 2) 3) 4i 'rln the G.O.1st read above, the Governmenl I 1vc issued orders that the tax leviable on the Inter-Sta r sales oI Aluminium shall be at thc rate of 1o% und.r I Le CST Act, 1956, provided such sales are coverecl lr. C/D Form, rv. e. f.2 5. O 1 .2 OO3. ln their representation 2nd cited, the Alumir Trade dealers have requested the Governmeo clarihcation that the concession given in th. not restricted to Raw Aluminium but applier; Shcet/Coils Alloy ingots and Wire Rods falllr term "Aluminium" and are covered undcr (i ( Rcvenue (CT-lI) Department, dt.25.01.20O:l rm Industry, & to issue aid C.O. is o Extrusion, g under lhe Ms.No.97, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is i r )rmed that thr: entry relating to Aluminium is at Sl.No.l50 ) 1$ Schedule of APGST Act, WHICH READS AS \ uminium, brass, Copper and bronzc and articlcs made there from but excluding utensils i6 kitchen ware" (as on 25-O 1.2003). Therefore, the Covernment after careful exiu matter, hercby clariry that the concessron ;r .l G.O.Ms.No.97, Revenue (CT.tt) Dept., dt.:I given keeping in view the ehrry l5O and I NALCO, in order to protect revenue payablc I manufacturers. It is also hereby clarihed th I intention of the Government is not to restril the G-O.Ms.No.g7 to raw Aluminium onlv. linatron o[ the rted rn 01.2003, w.as rc products of application ol Thc Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.l). requcsted to take necessary action accordinr,l 4. A plain reading of the contents of this Clarificz lory Memo dated Hyderabad is i8.01.2008 issued by the Government of Andhra p-, desh uid.e Memc: No.3164/CT.ll(1)/2OO8-1, it is apparently clear that what was intended b1, the Government was that except for Alr minium utensils and kitchen \liare, a1i other form of Aluminium pr rducts would bc i 3 charged at concessional rate of 170 under the Central Sales Tax Act,

1956. The Government had, in very categorical terms, held that the intention of the Government was not to restrict the application of G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 25.01..2OO3, to raw Aluminium alone. In that context, it has to be qccepted that the products sold by the petitioner like Aluminium rods, profiles, extrusions, sheets etc., also would be charged at the concessional rate of lo/o and the order of the Assessing Officer, therefore, would not be tenable in the light of the Clarificatory Memo dated 18.01.2008 is concerned. 5 : In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the Writ Petitions, setting aside the impugned order of assessment dated 30.1 1.20O7 and held that the petitioner was cntitled lor the lev.v of ta-x at the concessiona-l rate in terms of G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 25.O 1.2003 read with the Clarihcatory Memo dated 18.01 .2008 uide Memo No 3 I 64lCT.ll( l)/2008- 1.

6. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand allowed There shali be no order as to costs- Pending miscellaneous appiications, if shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Eleventh Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' //TRUE COPY// SD/-M. NAGAMANI SI ANT REGIS CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Commercial Tax Officer, MG Road Circle, Sec 2. One CC to SRI S.CHAKRAPANI, Advocate [OPUC] de bad 3 Two CCS tO SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX, High Colrt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies %.: ,\ * s, * $ i I I : I i I i! i I ; I t i : ; n' t b +t * rD + G + * + ,& ; il" * F t, *" HIGH COURT DATED: 11t09t2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.1555 and 1ST7 of 20Ag -....=: -:..:.. - l11t-1i-5j o o /,.) 19 0EC 7gm ; ]ts-a 16,. .i/ {, ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONf , WITHOUT COSTS : I 1 I