The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI I,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAI4 KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA ]HALAPATHI RAO T.R.E.V.C.No.125 OF 2010 DATE : 27.11.2025 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By the State Representative before STAT ANT) IWs. Baleshwara Oil Mill, Asifabad, Adilabad District. ...Petitioner ...Respondent ORDER: (per Hon'blc Sri Jusric.t P.Som Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, leamed Assisla rt Govemment Pleader representing leamed Special Government I'l :ader for State Tax, for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The instant is a tax revision case which has tt ren filed under Section 22(1) of the APGST Act, 1957 challenging he order dated

15.10.2008 passed in T.A.No.655 of 2003 by the Salr:r 'fax Appellate :r Tribunal ('for short, 'Tribunal'). Vtde the said impugned order, the Tribunai has reversed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Adilabad, dated 02.12.1998 in Procs.No.l20O9 / 1994 -95 (CST).

3. 'Ihe whole dispute in the instant case revolves against the so called Sales Tax Holiday Certificate issued by a State Level Committee, comprising of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and other higher ofhcials of Industry and Commerce Department. The respondent-assessee is a registered dealer on the rolls of Commercial Department and is involved in the business of manufacturing washed cotton seed oil in terms of G.O.Ms.No.498 dated 16.10.1989 and the Certificate issued by State Level Committee. However, the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the asscssee in having the Sales Tax Holiday both on the washed cotton seed oil and also the cotton seed oil cake is concerned, vide order dated 28.10.1997. However, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) revised the said order exercising revisional power under Section 20 of APGST Act, vide order dated 02,12.1989 holding that the Tax Holiday was only sofaras the manufacturing of washed cotton seed oil and not for the sale of cotton seed oil cake and subjected the assessee to tax sofaras the sale of washed cotton seed oil is concerned. It was this order which was subjected to challenge before the learned Tribunal, where the matter 3 was registered as T.A.No.655 of 2003 and the le Lrned Tribunal finally allowed the appeal in favour of the assesse: The Tribunal, primarily allowed the appeal, firstly holding that once when the State level Committee, had granted Certihcate of Sales -i'r x Holiday, the same could not had been reversed by a Sub-ordina t Officer of the Depufy Commissioner, that too, exercising the re r sional powers. Secondly, the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal on .he ground that admittedly, vude G.O.Ms.No.498 dated 16.10. 1989 1 e assessee was given Sales Tax Holiday insofar as manufacturing r I rvashed cotton seed oil is concemed. According to the Tribunal, th: cottou seed oil cake is not manufactured item sold by the assesstx but is only a by-product extracted after manufachrring ofcotton se: I oil

4. Though the leamed Assistant Govemment P r tder appearing for the petitioner tried to impress upon the Benr:l that the Tax Holiday was granted only sofaras manufacturing th: rvashed cotton seed oil is concerned and since there is altogether a,l lferent product which has been sold also by the assessee, the tax exern rtion cannot be extended except the product i.e., the cotton see I oi1 cake is concemed, we are not impressed with the submissions to made by the counsel for the pgtitioner for the finding so given ;y the learned Tribunal which for ready reference is being reproducr< hereinunder: 1 4 l\ "When once oertificate has been granted by a State Level Committee, comprising of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and higher officials of Industries and Commerce Department, the Deputy Commissioner, who is subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot Come to the conclusion that thc said oertificate is not applicable to the bye-product produced by the appellant. The raw-material for manufacture of cotton seed oil is cotton seed. When cotton seeds undergo the manufacture process, the resultant products would be cotton seed oil as well as cotton seed oil cake. The appellant is not separately manufacturing cotton seed oil cake but it is a bye-product which is being derived by the appellant while carrying out manufacturing process, producing cotton seed oil fiom cotton seeds. When once certificate has been granted, the same cannot be cancclled by the Deputy Commissioner. A State Lcvel Committee has granted the said certificate- To encourage industries and industrial development, Govemrnent issued tho said GO granting sales tax exemption as well as sales def-erment for a penod of seven years or so".

5. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader appearing for the petitioner was not in a position to show that the said finding given by the Tribunal was in any manner erroneous or conhary to law. Moreover, the finding also was based on any judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also by the jurisdictional High Court and for that reason also, the order under challenge cannot be found to suffer from any perversity. ln view of the same, we do not find any strong case made out by the petitioner.

6. The Tax Revision Case thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S )/- MOHD. ISMAIL DI: ,UTY REGISTRAR \-r/ I ECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad' 2. The Dy. Commissioner (CT), Division Adilabad' Adilabad 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, lvlancherial' Dist' Asifabad' 4.oneCCtoSRl,SURlBABUS(SPLSCFoRCTAP),HilCourtfortheState of Telangana. [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies AS R,/P SL I I or. .., =- " .;,' /. .;11 ! i.'r :: r r, ( o_- a) t) i. 30,t-tg 'r, I ,. '\i._(,/ -.- ,' , 1r-1-ul-\ --. '.,-(,, HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 ORDER TREVC.No.125 ot 2010 DISMISSING THE RE\iISION CASE