The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Shriraj, learned counsel representing R.S. Associates The Court delivered the following : Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRTJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TREVC No.183 OF 2009 JUDGNIENT: Oar Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koslry) Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, Ieamed r\ssistant Govemment Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Govemment Pleader for the State Tax for the petitioner and Mr. Shriraj, learned counsel representing R.S. Assrtc:iates for the respondent. I)erused the record.

2. 'l-he present is a tax revision case under Section 112:( l) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 1957 preferrcd by the State. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate -l'rihunal (STAT) in Tribwral Appeal \o.l-i88 ol 200i. decided on 02.03.2009.

3. -[he question of law raised by the State while as:;ailing the order ol the leamed STAT is whether G.O.Ms.Nc,.:il3 dated

14.01.1984 provides exemption from payment of sales tax to products rnanuf-actured by the Wornen's Welfare lndustrial 2 Cooperative Societies alone or even to the dealerS who sells products manufactured by such Industrial Cooperative Societies.

4. For better understanding, it would be relevant to take note of the contents of the GOMs which is the bone of contentlon in the instant tax revision case. 'ln exercise of the powers conferred by Section I of APGST Act, 1957, (Andhra pradesh Act Vl of 1957), the Governor ofAndhra pradesh hereby exempts the sales of all products manufactured by the Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies in the State from the tax payable under the said Act with effect from 01.04.1984"

5. The respondent/assessee ts IN l'act, on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Department and is a dealer ol sale ol voltage stabilizers. He has purchased the stabilizers ftorn M/s Sannihlta Electronics Women's Welfare Cooperative Society. The assessee had claimed exemption of payment of tax under the ApGST law in terms of the afore referred G.O.Ms.No.5ll dated 24.B.l9g4 The Commercial Tax Oflicer initially had refused ro granr exemption to the petitioner. However, on an appeal, the Appcltate FIF'I-_---"-- 3 Authority had allorved the appeal vide order dated 17.03.1999. However, the same was reversed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 10.03.2003 restoring the order passed by the Commercial Tax Off-rcer. However, on an appeal preferred by the assesssee before the learned STAT, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the order ol the Revisional Authority upholding the c,rder of the Appeltate Authority.

6. What is undisputed in the instant case is the frct that the respondent/assessee is a dealer in the business of sale ol stabilizers. It is also undisputed that the respondent/assessee sell; stabilizers which he purchase'd from M/s Sannihita Electronics Women's Welf are Coopcrative Society. [n terms of the sale of the stabilizers manulactLrred tiom the afore-mentioned Women's Wellare Society, the Society had clainred tbr exe.mption and which is the point of issue in the instant tax revision case also. The leamed STAT referring to the contents of the GO and reversing the order of the Revisional Authority has rvhile deciding the issue held as under: "A reading of the above GO indicates that the goc,ds if they are manufactured by Women's Welfare lnduslrial Cooperative Societies, they are exempted from pdymenr of 4 sales tax under APGST Act. The only rider for claiming exemption under the Act is that the goods must be manufactured by women welfare industrial cooperative society. The GO does not say that the goods shall be manufactured and sold by women welfare industrial cooperative society. lf really the contention of the learned State Representative is to be taken as true, the GO will be worded as follows: "The Govemor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts the goods manufactured aN sold by women weffare industrial coo pe rativ e societies". But the above wording has not been employed by the Govemment while issuing the said GO under Section 9(1) of APGST Act. Probably in order to encourage the Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies, whatever the goods they manufaclure are accorded exemption of sales tax, whether they urere sold by women welfare industrial cooperative society or for any other subsequent dealer. One cannot expect the goods manufacture by these societies can stand the cornpetition for the goods which are being manufactrred by reputed companies such as Voltas, Uni-Stab, V-Guard voltage stabilizers etc., Hence, it seems that to encourage this Sannihita Electronics Women Cooperative Society or such like other Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies, the Government issued a general GO covering all the goods that are being manufactured according sales tax exemption, whenever they are marketed by any @aler in the open market. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a general GO issued by the Government granting exernptbn for all the products manufactured by the \Abmen Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies whether they are sold by such society or by any 5 other dealer from payment of sales tax. The order passerd.by the Addrtional Commissioner clearly indicates that admittedly these voltage stabilizers are manufactured by Sannihita Electronics Women Cooperative Society Thereforr:, in pursuance of GO.Ms.No.533 Revenue, dated 24-3-1984' the appellant is entitled to claim exemption from payment of sales tax on the sales of these voltage stabilizers Accordingly this issue is found in favour of the appellarrt and against the revenue".

7. Coming thc rvordings of G'O.Ms.No.533 dated 24'03'1984 as has been rightly discussed by the leamed STAT, what is indicated is only granting excmption to the products manufactured by the Women Wettare Industrial Society. The GO does not in any manner restrict the eft-ect of the said GO to *re W'lmen Welfare Industrial Coope rative Societies alone but also covers the sale rnade by cvcn dcalers as rvell or else it would had been specifically dealt with in tlre GO itsclt-. t'he GO, on the plain reading, gives a clearly indication ot' the intcntion of the Govemm()nt to promote thc products uranttlitctured by thc Women Welfare Industrial Cooperative Socictics. Norvhere does the GO also indicates that apaft lrom nranr,r f'actut'itrg thcse products, it is the r'esponsibility o[ the said Cooperltivc Societies alone to have also carried out the salc so its t() gct thc cxetttption. ln the absent;e of any such 6 indication in the GO and the GO being a general GO granting a general exemption of all products manufactured irrespective of the agency who sells it, be it a dealer, be it the society themselves, such products would stand exempted from payment of sales tax under the APGST Act. In view of the same, we are also o[ the considercd opinion that the opinion arrived at by the learned STAT is proper, legal and justified and the question of law stands answered against the petitioner/State and in favour of the respondent/assessee. 8 The tax revision case fails and is, accordingly, dismissed l'hcre shalI be no order as to costs. Cor.rscquently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. N SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To, 1 . The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad(With records, 2 Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GP for the state tax, High if any) Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 3 .One CC to Sri Shriraj, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ) il ADI(PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 JUDGMENT TREVC.No.183 of 2009 DISMISSING THE TREVC WITHOUT COSTS I @A q $ 1t' ---:'.=':- ::-.-- 1 i li['{ ir-liq C iti,'t-1 \:,, \.'.,\it ,