The High Court · 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special GP for State Tax Counsel forthe Respondent: ___ TAX REVISION NO: 145 OF 2010 Petition under Section 22(1) R/w Rule 10 of the APGST Rules U/s. APGST Act, to revise the Orderdated 20.10.2008 passed in TA No.101 1of 2002 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by the State Representative before STAT O/o.D.No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. AND M/S.Ratna Polymers [P] Ltd, Kompally, Ranga Reddy. ,.Petitioner ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Swaroop oorilla, Speciat Gp for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent: ___ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA ATITDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA 45 Date227.01.2026 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the State Representative before STAT., Hyderabad. M/s.Ratna Polymers (P) Ltd., Kompally. And Petitioner ...Respondent COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P'Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.swaroop oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. 2. These are the Tax Revision Cases filed under Section 22 (l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, assailing the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), in T.A.Nos.924 and 1011 0f 2002 decided on 07.11.2008 and 20 .l 0 .2008 resPectivelY- 2

3. Since the question of law raised by the State Government through the present Tax Revision Cases being identical in these petitions, we are inclined to take-up these petitions and dispose of by this oommon order.

4. The question of law raised by the State Govemment in these two petitions is as to whether the sale of Kraft paper waste would become liable for exemption under G.O.Ms.No.l30, dated

14.02.1989 along with G.O.Ms.No.540, dated 05.09.2002. A perusal of the facts narrated in the orders under challenge before this court would reveal that the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.l30, dated 14.02.1989 had granted exemption of paymenr. of sales tax on all sorts of waste paper excluding old newspa[)ers and newspaper waste. In the instant cases, the respondr:nt-Assessee is involved in the sale of Corrugated Boxes and in t.he process of preparing the comrgated boxes by using Kraft papers come across certain vraste from the Kraft papers and it is the sale of this waste paper, which is the product in issue in these Tax Revisions. 3

5. The contention of learned Special Government Pleader was that G.o.Ms.No. [30 referred above grants exemption only so far as waste paper is concemed and the sale of Kraft paper would not get automatically attracted to the said G.o. unless specially indicated.

6. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the fact that the same question of law already came up for hearing before the unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh in respect of M/s.Lakshmi Traders, Vijayawada v. State of Andhra Pradeshr,wherein taking into consideration the same G.O., the High Court was of the view that expression of 'waste paper' referred to G.O.Ms.No.l30 as also G.O.No.540 referred to above has to be given wider interpretation and it has to be construed that what was meant was any sort of waste paper irrespective whether, it is Kraft paper or any other paper. The exclusion that has been given in the notification itself is that of newspaper waste and old newspapers. Further perusal of the record would also show that in respect of the same Assessee i.e. Laxmi Traders there is yet another decision of the High Court reported in (2005) 139 S'l'C 392 decided on 'gz apsu gt 4

14.07.2003 wherein, again the High court in the state of Andhra Pradesh (unified) in para Nos.9, r 0 and r I has held reiterating earlier stand taken in respect of the same Assessee i.e. Laxmi Traders, as under: . "ra *9: The question is whether the three items i.e. Kraft Box waste, ^ Sweeping tftaft was.te and. Duprex waste, which are being sord by the paper,,. .IM;i; paper,, petitioners, would fall within the ambit of ..waste includes alt these categories. [n rhe absenc. ;i;;y"[;riiion'ilo"ia.a r, the category of 'wastepapers' it is to be understood that ail papers, which become useless shail be treated as "waste papers',. Since the items, which 1g b-eine sord by the petitioners, are incruded within ltem No.r+: or Schedule I of the Act, they are riabre to be exempted from puy,r*iof sur", tax' Fufther c.o.Ms-No.540, crared 5.g.2002 issued by the bovemm"nt utro clarified that Kraft Box wasre, Sweeping Kraft Box orpr*'riii.," ur. also liable to be exempted from payment-of sales tax. l0' During the course-of hearing of these T.R.cs and writ petitions, learned Senior counser for the petitioners has arso incidenta[y ti;;;'u I.n". addressed by the commissioner of commercial Taxes, coue.nrnent or Andka Pradesh, to the Speciar chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (9T.rl) Deparrment, dated 08.02.2002 to visuaiize correc poriii*-in tt" light of the decisions rendered by the Sares Tax Appeilate Tribunar. In the said letter the learned commissioner arso opined't'hut on ,r," a."'or ,n. decision of the Sales Appellate Tribunal in L"t.t _i foa"..,-Vliu!*rU, v' State of A.p.' 32 ApsrJ 31, it is not desirable to inrerfere witiit" pu., proceedings and therefore he strongly recommends to the Governmert to amend the said item (i) by, expressly including Kraft Box Waste, S*""ping Kr..aft.Box and Duprex waste with effect frrm r.4.2002 uy ma*injtnem eligibre for exemption. Learned Senior counser Stated that'on in" L-uri, or this letter, the Governmenr issued rater G.o. i.e. c.o.Ms.No.l+0,-a""a 05'09.2002. He also stated that merery because the commissioner crarified the position and rater the Govemment issued G.o.Ms.No.54o,--aut.a 5'9'2002 it cannot be said that these items are exempted from payment of tax only from the date of commencement of G'.o.Mt.No.i+'ol- a"t"a 5.9.2002. ll' on anarysis of the entire material praced before us and in the right of the meaning given to the "waste paper" and arso ttre exemption'p.*ia"a l4:19 O Vts.NO.l30, dated t4.2.i9tig ana the later C.O.U..No.liO aur.a 5'9'2002, we are of the view, the Tribunar wourd not rruu" !iu.n u-n.* meaning and tried to distinguish a particular item with ott.. i.ms on the sole analogy of Murmuralu (puffed rice) and palalu (parched.i..j. i,,t, cases on hand we are not dearing with Murmuratu lpurrea .i""1 prr"r, (parched rice) to find out whai was the raw matirial used for .uting ",ia -ir,.'ii.*, Atukulu, Murmuralu (puffed rice) and palaiu (parched rice). :li"h :* sold by the petitioners a." in"tuJeJ- in items r43 of r,r Schedure to the Act are exempted from payment of tax.- In that viegoedr" *ut ,t. "., 5 Atukulu, Murmuralu (puffed rice) and Patatu (parched rice)' -The. items *ni"r, *" sold by the petitioners are included in items 143 of l" schedule to tne ect u...*i*pt.d from payment of tax' In that view of the matter' the issue has to be answered againsi the Revenue declaring that the three items i"ing ,oro by the petitionerl snatt be entitled for exemption from payment of sales"rax in ierms-of G.o.Ms.No.l30, dated 14-2.1989 and G.o.Ms.No.540, dated 5.9.2002;'

7. tn the instant case also, the facts are more or less identical in nature and since there is a consistent view of the High Court and which has also been followed by the learned Tribunal in the course of passing of the impugned order, we do not find any elror to have been committed by the Tribunal while taking up this issue and deciding it in favour of the respondent-Assesse. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the Tax Revision cases filed by the State.

8. Accordingly, these Tax Revision Cases stands rejected confirming the orders passed by the leamed Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY/T Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REG ECTION OFFICER To, l.TheSalesTaxAppellateTribunal,AndhraPradesh,Hyderabad 2.TwoCCstotheSpecialGPforStateTax,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad (OUT) w":;:Dc'pes ,i I /- HIGH COURT DATEDi i1710112026 COMMON ORDER TREVC.NoS .120 and 145 of 201 HE1 S o(J i J1 R 7q?[ 2 t' REJECTING THE BOTH TREVCs WITHOUI'COSTS