The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondents: - TAX REVISION CASE NO: 291 OF 2009 Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules under Section APGST Act to revise the order dated 01.05.2009 passed in T.A-No. 1038 of 2003 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the state Representative before STAT., D.No. 5-4-404 to 408, Nampally Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND M/s. Bhavani Modern Rice Mill, Poosala Vllage, Sultanabad Mill, Karimangar District. ...RespondenUAppellant Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondents: - TAX REVISION CASE NO: I OF 2010 Tax Revrsion Case under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 1tl of APGST Rules under Section APGST Act to revise the order dated 01.06.200'3 passed in T.A.No. 1298 of 2OO4 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the State Representative before STAT, D.No 5-4-404 to 408 Nampally, Hyderabad, Andhra P.adesh AND M/s. Nandini Traders, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ...Petitioner/Respondent ...Res pondenUAppellant Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for State Ta.( Counsel for the Respondents: - TAX REVISION CASE NO: 9 OF 2010 Tax Revision Case under Sectlon 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules under Section APGST Act to revise the order dated 03.07.2009 passed in T.A.No' 15g2to4 & 1593/04 on the file of tlre 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. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND M/s. Sri Kavitha Rice Mill, 2340, Gaddiannaram, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District ...RespondenUAppellant Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondents: - TAX REVISION CASE NO: 17 OF 2010 Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules under Section APGST Act to revise the order dated 01.06.2009 passed in T.A No' 13O2I2OO4 on the file of the Sales Tax fupellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by the State Representative before STAT O/o D.No.5-4404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ...Petitioner/Respondent AND M/S.Nagarjuna lndustries, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ... Res po nden UAppellant Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondents: - TAX REVISION CASE NO: 58 OF 2010 Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules under Section APGST Act to revise the order dated 23.06.2009 passed in T.A.No. 155512004 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the State Represenlative begore STAT., D.No. 5-4-4o4 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, ...Petitioner/Respondent AND M/s. Sri Venkateswara Par Boiled, Gummadavally, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. RespondenUAppellant Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran Assistant GoYernment Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for State Tax Gounsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CTIALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CAS E Nos.275 and 291 of2009 and 8 9 17 and 58 of 2010 CO MMON ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, Ieamed Assistant Govemment Pleader representing Mr'Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax, for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Since the question of law involved and the growrd raised by the petitioner being the same in these Tax Revision Cases, they could have been considered and decided by way of this common order. 3. The instant are the Tax Revision Cases filed by the petitioner-State Govemment under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "th€ GST Act")' The challenge is to the order passed by leamed Sales Tax Appellate Tribunat (tbr short "the Tribunal") in T.A.Nos.l039, 1038 of 2003'

1298. 1592. 1i02, 1555 of 2004 decided on 0l'05'2009' 0 I .06. 1009. 0 3.07.2009, 0 I -06.2009 and 23 -M.2O09 respective lv'

4. Vide the impugned orders, the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeals pre f'erred by the respondents-Assessees and partly q-,.,r / /^N:'j/-/ \ (-f ./ 2 dismissed the same. There were two questions of l:rw which stood decided by the Tribunal.

5. The prescnt are the Tax Revision Cases which have been filed assailing the only question of law which stood ,iecided against the Revenue i.e. question No. l. The question No.l decided was whether collection of sales Tax levied on Rural Der,elopment Cess component is enforceable in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.1)5 1 and 952, dated 10.09.2003.

6. For better understanding o[the question raisc.d by the State Govemment in the present Tax Revision Cases, it rvould be more appropriate if we refer to G.O.Ms.Nos.95 I and 952 u,hich for ready reference reproduced hereunder: ' APGST Act. l957-Exemption from levy of sales tax on the Rural Developntcnt Cess component-Notificatio,n issued. (G.O.Ms.No.95l, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Dr.10.09.2003) NOTII-ICAI'ION In excrcise ol'the poucrs cont'erred by sub section (l) of Section 9 o[ the Andhra Pradcsh (icncral Sales Tax hct, 1957 (Act VI ol' 1957). rhe (iovcnror ol' Andhra Pradesh hereby grants cxcmption lionr Lhc lcr,r ol' sales tax on the Rural Developntcnt Ccss conrponcnt ol the purchase value ,rf Paddy by the Ricc N,lillers. under thc said Act. N.S.Harih aran, Principal Secretary to (]overnment. (4) C.O.Ms.No.952, Rcvenue (CT-II) Dept., Dr.10.9.2003. " A.P.Rural Developnrent Cess Act, 1996- \\/aiver of demand relating to levy of Rurtl ( EFt!.r 3 Devclopment Cess on actual purchase prices paid by millers over and above minimum support price of paddy and also the outstanding arrears towards sales tax on Rural Development Cess component till date-Orders-Issued. ORDER: The Govemmcnt herebv waive the outstandins demand relating to lew of Rural Development Cess on actual purchase prices paid by millers over and above minimum support price of paddy and also the outstanding arrears ton ards sales tax on Rural Development Cess component of Purchase Value of Paddy, till date. (emphasis added). 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action, accordingly. (By order and in the name ofGovernor of Andhra Pradesh). Principal Secretary to Government." 1l' A plain reading o{' two G.Os would emphatically make N.S. Hariharan, things clear that so lar as G.O.Ms.No.95l, dated 10.09.2023 is concerned there rvas a clear exemption granted by the State Govemment fiorn the levy of sales tax on the Rural Development Cess component on the purchase value of paddy by the rice millers which makes the el'l-cct and operation of G.Os. jurisdiction with effect tiom l 0.09.2001. B Now coming to G.O.Ms.No.952, dated 10.09.2003, a reading ol the same again would make it emphatically <lgqr that by this 4 G.O. the Govemment infact intended to waive the recovery of arrears towards sales tax on Rural Development (Jess component on the purchase value of paddy, tiI date i.e. the date on which it is published which in the instant case was 10.09.2003. _l.his in orher way means the effect of G.O.Ms.NO.952 is grant ng of exemption or waiver for the previous years also. It is this fact which has been taken note ofby the Tribunal in the course of allorving the revision petitions in favour of the assesses. There does not seem to be any good ground raised by the State Govemmcnt tc show that the finding so arrived at by the Tribunal is contrary to the intention of the Govemment in the course ol passing of aforesaid mentioned two G.Os i.e. G.O.Ms.No.9S I and 952, dared 10.09 2003. No case has been made out by the Stare Govemrnent to show that there were any other G.os. issued by the cover.nrnent rvith which the Govemment could have levied e ither sales tax or could have recovered the arrears of the sales tax on thc ltural l)evelopment Cess component. Moreover, the said finding given bv the Tribunal is strictly analyzing two G.os wrricrr r.akcs the fi,cling of fact, which gives minimal scope of intcrf.erence under Section 22 of the t@r FrfeSE €/ :::*?, t::rtl 5 GST Act. We do not find any case made calling for interference to the impugned orders. q' All the Tax Revision Cases referred by the petitioner-State Govemment accordingly stand rejected and the question of law decided by the Tribunal stands affirmed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special Government Pleader for State Tax [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies DUPSL ,W HIGH COURT DATED:07/10/2025 COMMON ORDER TREVC.NoS.275 and 291 of2009 and 8,9,17 and 58 of 2010 C)(xt..) i,l '; t\ l[: : ..-r t I t,tnv 2925 \i ':.r '\- I \-,. REJECTING THE TAX REVISION CASES 4 l \n,ll \__:/ ' ( f)