The High Court · 2025

M/S Raasi Cement Limited, [Merged with The lndia Cements Lltd] Rep.by its General Manager [FandA], Mr. G.S.Naidu White House, 3rd Flooi, Block'-lll, Begu mpet, ANO The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep its State Representative before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREOOY Counsel for the Respondent :SRl SWAROOP OORILLA (sc FoR coMMERTCAL TAX) TAX REVISION CASE NO: 43 OF 2009 Tax Revision Case under Section 22('1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the order dated 05-09-2008 passed in T.A. No.1332 of 2001 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Between: M/S. Raasi Cement Ltd, ( ti/erged with The lndia Cement Ltd) White House, 3rd Floor, Block-lll, Begumepet, Hyderabad- 500 016, Rep. by its General Manager (FandA), Mr. G.S.Naidu AND The State of Andhra Pradesh. rep. its State Representative before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner ... Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY - Counsel for the Respondent :SRl SWAROOP OORILLA ( SC FOR COMMERICAL TAX, TAX REVISION CASE NO: 46 OF 2009 Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) of the Andhra [) adesh General Sales Tax Act, '1957 to revrse the order dated 23-10-2008 passed rr t A No 7 of 2002 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, l-1, derabad. Between: It//S. Raasi Cement Ltd , [Vlerged with The lndia Cements L:d) White House. 3rd gmpet Hyderabad -500 0'16, Rep. bl ts Generat Manager Floor. Block-lll (F and A), It/lr G S Naidu. ^B^eg AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the State Representrr ve before Sales Tax Appellate Tribu nal, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTATV REDDY Counsel for the Respondent :SRl SWAROOP OORILLA ( sc FoR coMMER|CAL TA) ) TAX REVISION CASE NO: 68 OF 2009 Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) of the Andhra p., desh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the order dated 23-10-2008 passed in A. No.9 of 2OO2 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. H I lerabad Between: M/S Raasi Cement Limrted, [Merged with The lndia Cemen:: Limited,] Rep by General Manager[ FandA], lVr. G.S.Naidu White House 3rd ftooi, Bioc(- Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ilt. AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. its State Representatrv: before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ...Petitioner ... Res pondent Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAM I IEDDY Counsel for the Respondent :SRl SWAROOP OORILLA ( SC FOR COMMERICAL TAX) TAX REVISION CASE NO: 'l'10 OF 2009 Tax Revision Case under Section 22('l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the order dated 05-09-2008 passed in T.A. No. 1 333 of 2001 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Between: M/S Raasi Cement Limited, [tr/lerged with The lndia Cements Limited,] House,3rd floor, Block-lll, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. Repby its G Manager[ FandA], Mr. G.S Naidu White eneral AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. its State Representative before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner ... Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent :SRl SWAROOP OORILLA ( sc FoR coMMER|CAL TAX) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM K(] SHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NA sING RAO N' NDIKONDA AND I I X REVI TAX REVISION CASE No .229 of ZOOa TAX REVISION CASE No .29 oJ 2OO9; TAX REVISION CASE No.4O of 2OO9; 9 TAX REVISION CASE No. 43 of 2OO9; TAX REV SION CASE No. 46 of 2OO9: TAX REVISION CASE No. 68 of 2OO9; AND TAX REVISION CASE No.11O of 2OO9 CASE No.42 COMMON ORDER: i )!:t a,1e tla )'b!e Sii lustrce ?.Satn Kosn'/) Hearo Mr. Kai-thik Ramana Puttamreddy, learnec ounsel fo i- the petiticner in Tax Revision Case Nos.29, 40,42,43,46,5a & r 10 cf 2009 a;rd for rne respondent in Tax Revision Case Nr...22! of 2008; and Mr. Srnrai-oop Oorrlia, learned Standing Counsel for (- rmmercial Tax aDpealng on behaif of tire petitioner - State in Tax Revis ( n Case lrlo.229 ci 2003 and tor the respondent in Tax Revision Case Nos. '9, 10, 42, 43, 46, 68 & 110 of 2009.

2. Thes: are eiqni Tax F.e',,isiori Cases fileri ui,Je!- Serr on 22(1) read with Rule 1C of the Ancihra pracesh Gooa's anC Ser,,ce Tax Ruies (hereinai-tei- referred to as 'APGST Rules') irnCer the rr rdhra pr-adesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 1957 (her-einafter i-eferr-e.J to ; s 'ApGST Act,) .nailengirrg the orCers passed b.,; tiie Saies Tax Apoeiiate -:- ounal, Andhr-a Pradesh, r..lvde;-abao (her-einaftei- referi-ed tc as the ,STAT,.. 'Ihe details of Page 2 cf 15 - each of the case; like the assessment year, whether the Revision is filed by the State or the petitioner / assessee, ano the Tax Appeal number along with dates in each of the cases are reproduced hereunder: sl. No. 1 2 TREVC. No 229 of 2OoB ASSESSMEN YEAR 1992-93 iI rnEvE'irleo ai rHE I ttapucneo onorn AssEssEE oR srArE l VrypEE QIALLINcE T.A. No.103 3 of 2004 State 29 of 2OO9 1993-94 Assessee (M,/s. Decided on 23.06.2008 i T.A.No.1205 of 2001 3 40 of 2OO9 1993 -94 ,_ .. -_] 4 42 cf 2009 1993 9 5 6 7 8 43 af 2OO9 199r-92 46 of 2OO9 199 1-9 2 68 of 2C09 1992-93 L 110 of 2009 1992-93 Pnyadarsh rni Cement Ltd) Decrded on 29.08.2009 Assessee (M/s, Raast T.A.No.8 of 2002 Cement Ltd ) Decided on 23.10.2008 Assessee (l\4/s. Raasi T.A.No.10 of 2002 Cement Ltd) Assessee (M/s. Raasi Cement Ltd) essesiec ( t''t^. naas, Cernent Ltd) Aisessee iM7s. nuas, Cement Ltd ) n-esseelt"t7s. naas, Cement Ltd) Dec,Ced on 23.10.20C8 I.A. No.13 3 2 of 20C 1 Decrded on 0 5.09.2008 T.A-No.7 of 2002 Decrded on 23.10.2008 I A.No.9 of 2002 Decided on 23. r0.2008 l rA No.1333 oF 2001 Decrded on O 5.09.2OO8 In all these cases Since the point of Contention iS Same, they have 3. beerr iaken up and heard togethei- and are dccided b',' this Cc''nmcn Order.

4.ThequestionoFlawWhichWaSprimarilyraisedbythepetitioner/ assessee as also by the Revenue in their respective cases that they have filed is "whether the HDPE bags used for packing cement should be taxed separatelv at a lower rate or tcgether with cement at a higher rate under Section 6C of the APGST Act?"

5. In addition, there appears to be certain additiorr ti questions also raised in these Tax Revision Cases, which are:- a) Whether the diesel issued to the transporters or-) i-eturnable basis anC which was not returned constitutes taxable sair ? b) Whether tax could be levied on the undocument€ ( fly ash used by the assessee in the manufacturing process? c) Whether tax on freight relating to purchase of cn ore could be lev ied ?

6. For convenience, we first intend to take up the fir! - questron oF law which is running through in all these Tax Revision Cases nciuding the Tax Revision Case which has been filed by the State i.e. "rl rether the HDPE bags used for packrng cement should be taxed separatoi / at a lower rate together ir'.,iin cement at a higher rate under Section iC of the APGST :'l)A

7. In ihe Tax Revision Cases reflected at Sl.Nos.2 t r B in the table reproduced above, the STAT has held that HDPE bags ur ed in packing of cement being an integral part of the sale, it has to be axed along with cement at a hiqhei- r-ate. Just contrary to this is the find r g of STAT in the Tax Revision Case filed by the State reflected at Sl,l'.J ).1 in the table reproduced above n rvhich the STAT has taken an al:,gether opposite - stand that the HDPE bags and cement are two distinct entities and therefore they have to be taxed separately and in the process held that the HDPE bags have to be taxed at a lesser rate and cement has to be taxed at a higher rate. In the Tax Revision Cases preferred by the assessee' we find that 8. the Commercial Tax Officer initially had granted exemption on the packing material turnover. However, the Deputy Commissioner subsequently initiated revisional proceedings and revised the order of the Commercial Tax Officer holding that the HDPE bags used for packing cements would not be entitled for exemption and that it has to be taxed at the cement rate under section 6C of the APGST Act' Aggrieved by the said order' the respective assessee's preferred Tax Revision Cases before the STAT where the impugned orders were passed and which are under challenge before this Court' In respect of the Tax Revision Case preferred by the Revenue, the 9. 7992-93 ordered for Commercial Tax Officer, for the assessment year levying tax on HDPE bags along with cement at the rate fixed for cements.However,onanappealpreferredbytheassessee'theAppellate Deputy Commissioner reversed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer vide order dated 25.04.1999 holding that the HDPE bags and cement the APPellate DePutY were to be taxed separately' The order of Commissioner was subjected to chaiienge before the Additional DePutY Page 5 ot 16 Commissioner and the Additional Deputy Commission( r vide order dated

18.10.2002 affirmed the order passed by the Commer.r ial Tax Officer. It was this order of rhe Additional Deputy Commis; cner rvhich was subjected to challenge by the assessee beFore the 5i -AT, which stood allowed by the STAT vide order dated 23.06.2008, arl which is under challenge before th is Court.

10. So far as the ground whether the HDPE bags rad io be taxed independently or it has to be taxed along with its conte -. i.e. cement, the contention on behali of the assessee is that the STAT h.r, previously ruled in their iavor- on iCentical facts for assessment years 1; )l-92 and 1992- 93, decisiorrs that were confirmed by the High Court. Thi assessee argues that since the irrvoice formats and selling terms reme n simila. across these assessrnent periods showing separate pricing for r:3ment and HDpE bags, the same iavo.able treatment should apply. F r rthermore, they assert thai invoices themselves constitute contracts br: rr,reen buyer and seiler, evidencing impiied separate sales of packing mati, ial.

11. ihe contention of the assessee all along was t tat ihe prlmary question oi law framec in this batch of Revisions stood I ready settled by the Supreme Court in the case cF Raj Sheel and Oth€rs vs. State of A.P.1. Likelvise, in the case oF M/s. priyadarshini Cerneni; Ltc. also it was settled bv the High Corrt that HDpE bags was being su I ected to second 1989 3 SCC 262 sale and the cost of HDPE bags was not exigable to tax and that the turnover for the purchase of HDPE bags was entitled for exemption. L2. It was also the contention of the assessee that the packing matei-iai is a commodity having its own identity and is separateiy classified. It was also contended that there is no change, chemical or physical in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of using the contents and the packing is capable cf being reused after the contents have been consumed. Further, the packing material is used for convenience of transport and the quality oF goods as such is not dependent on packing. This test is also satisfied and cement is oacked in bags only for convenience of ti-anspcrt and the quality of cement does not depend cn HDPE bags.

13. It rvas further contended by the assessee that if the consideration for packing is merged with the consideration for the product would not make the sale of packing an integrated part of the sale of the product. In the present case, in fact, the packing material is separatel'/ charged.

14. It was lastly contended by the assessee that there is a separate and independent sale of the packing materiai and it is taxable on its own footing and not at the rate applicable to the contents.

15. The learned Standing Counsel for Commerciai Tax, while opposing the Tax Revision Cases filed by the assessee, as also while addressing the - n Tax Revision Case oreferred by the State has contendtl I that the HDPE bags will iose its own identity the moment cement s packed in it. Therefore, what was soli would be the packed amount qs the assessee was not engaged rn the business of re-sale oF pacK I g material, the question of assessee having any express or implied i! reement to sell packing material separately to customers along with : )ment does not arise. Any split-up of the ,Drice in the sale invoice as pr ( 3 of the cement and price of packirlg rraterial, the HDPE bags tantani 'unt to artificial bifurcation of the price of cement only to avoid paymenr lf higher rate of tax on the packing rnaterial under Section 6C of the APG:; t Act.

16. The learnec Standing Counsel for Commerr i rl Tax further contended that l-he STAT failec to analysis the facts cf , e case properly and mechanically allowed the case. That the HDPE Bags ; re primary used for oacking of cement anC sele of cement. Thus, withotr bags the same cannot be visualized and the value of the bag is iess t ran 10o/o of the value of cement. Ti'e prcperty in bags passes on to the ustcmers along with the cement. Ticr,:fore, it is an integrated / corr,cc site sale of the cement and the bags and a consolidated consideration vt ruld be received from the customers. There was no agreement either el( )ress or implied between the assessee and the customers for separate s; e of bags while selling cement. In the absence of such agreement, the 1r lnsaction would be regarded composite transaction involving sale of cement and packing material like HDPE bags for a fixed consideration. L7, It was further contended that an order of STAT mechanically allowing the case of the assessee without any justification is also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue warranting revision under section 20 of the APGST Act. In this regard, the judgment of Maruthi Fasteners Ltd, vs. State of A.P.2 was relied upon. 18, According to the learned Standing Counsel for Cornmercial Tax, the judgment in 94 STC 24 relied upon by the assessee reiated to a Tax Revision case under sectlon 22 of the APGST Act before the High Court of A.P. A Tax Revision Case to the High Court is maintainable only when the STAT decides any qL:estion of iaw or on fact erroneously. such a situation does not arise ai all here when the judgment of STAT in Tax Appeal No.553 of 1995, dated 13.02.1997, has a direct bearing to the facts oF th is case.

19. it was aiso the contentlon of the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax that in the original assessment order the STAT had came to the conclusion that there was no agreement either express or implied to sell HDPE bags separately. Therefore, there was composite sale oF cement and bags. Ho\/ever, the STAT took a different stand that there ' 30 APSrJ 212 was a separate sale of HDPE bags and they would be .i xable at the rate applicable under the entry instead oF under Section 6C,,f the APGST Act The splitting up of the value of cement and cost of packi)g material in the sale invoices is done for obvious reasons and ih: is undoubtedly permitted under the Indian Law as held by the Suprr me Court in Mc. Dowells case (59 Sf C 227). 20, it was further contended by the learned Stafr ling Counsel for Commercial Tax that as held by the STAT in Bharat Ca. APSTJ 49) the sale invoices themselves withcut l evidence establish the agreements between the p; r l Cola's case (46 rv corroborative ties. In such a situation, the grani of exemption by the STAT on the \,. I re of the packing materials in effectuating the orders of the Appellate Ll thority is rightly withdrawn by the Revisional Authority !-estoring the oli I inal assessment order and.;udgment in lt4/s, Priyadarshrnr Cernents vrit- rut,verifying the facts in that case the facts in the present case are at vil ia nce. Each case has to be decided on its own set of facts and relative me r ts. 2L, It was also the contention of the learned Starrr ing Counsel for Commercial Tax that all the judgments reiied upon by ire assessee had been extensively deait with in Tax Appeal No.553 cf 1995, dated

13.02.1997, and those judgments were cleariy distinguis red to the effect that in those jirdgi-renr-s both the STAT and the cc,rcerr r d High Court on facts found that there M/as a separate agreement Fo. sale of packing fI- material and the contents and the value of packing material was separately charged in the bills. In the present case, there was no agreement for saie of packing materials separately.

22. It was lastly contended by rearned Standing counser for commerciat Tax that in the absence of any agreement between the sefler and buyer, it is clear that the HDPE bags soid along with its content is a composite sale. The splitting up the value of cement and packing material in the sale invoice is not conclusive in the light of judgment of the supreme Court in Bharat coca cola vs. state of A.p.3, thus. the Revisionar Authority has rightly proposeci revision under Section 2O(2) of the ApGST Act. 23, Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the judicial precedents on the subject matter.

24. The predominant case in this context is that of Raj sheer and others (supra), wherein uncei- simirar circumstances, the supreme Court dealing with the issue held at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as under: "9, It is, therefore, perfectly plain that the issue as to whether the packing materiai has been sold or merely transferred without consideration depends on the contract between the parties. The fact that the packing s of insignificant value in relation to the value of the contents may imply that there vlas no intention to se the packing, but where any packing material is of significant vatue it may impiy an intention to sell the packing material. In a case where 'q6 APsrj q9 -a--a Page i1 of 16 the packing material is an independent commodity an i material as vtell as the contents are sold indepencientl; , material is tiable to tax an its own footing. Whether a t-' sate of packtng material is an indepenCent transacticl upon several faciors, some of them berng: the packing the packing nsaction for will depend "1. The packing material is a commaditY het ng its own identity and is separatety classifled in the Schedtl ;

2. There is no change, chemicai or physical, ti) the packing either at the time of packing or at the time f using the content;

3. The packing is capable of being reuseC after he contents have been consumed;

4. The packing is used for .onvenience of trans )art and the quantity of the goods as such is not dependent 6r p1cking:

5. The mere iact that the cansideration for t't t packing is merge,l with the consideratnn for the proci,ict tat t ild not make the sale of packing an integratei part tf thi sale cf the product. " In one case, Punjab Distitling Industries Ltd. v. C:T :\IR 1959 SC 346 : 1959 Supp 1 SCR 683 : (1959) 35 ITR 5191 v''he e the bottles were sald by the assessee under a buY-back schemt, the securitY deposit for the return of the bottles was held to be r lerehy' in the nature of an incentive to the buyer to return the battl€t

70.......1f the transaction is one of sale of the goods cr that can be taxed in fact is the sale of the ?acds, and i applied must be read rn the case of such goods. It ma price of the goods is determined upon a consideratrt components, including the value of the packinE ' nonetheless the price is the price of the gcods. It ts anyone to say that the value cf the different contlt have entered into a determinatian of the price of the be anatvsed and separated, in order that difiereni should be apolied according to the character of the c: example, packing material). l'Vhat Section 6-C intends , that e,/en upcn such analysis the rate of tax to be. component vriil be the rate applied to the goods th) that is for lhe simDle reason that it is the prrce cf ti i which constittLtes the transactian betweet' the dt:, 'y, clearly all .'t e rate to be , be :hat the n of several )aterEl, but not cpen to 'nents which Toods should rates of tax nponent (for : lay down is )Dlied to the ,tselves. And goods alone ler and the Page 12 ol l6 purchaser. No matter whai may be the component which enters into such price, the parties understand between ihem that the purchaser is paying the price of the goods. Section 6-C merely clarifies and explains that the comDonents v,rhich have entered into determining the price of the gcods cannot be treated separately from the goods themselves, and that no account was in fact taken of the packing material when the transactrcn took place, and that if such account must be taken then the same rate must be applied to the packing material as is applicable to the goods themselves. We find it difficult to accept the conteniicn of the appellants that a rate applicable to the packing material in the Schedule should be applied to the sale of such packinE material in a case under Section 6-C, when in fact thefe was no such saie af packing material and it is only by legai fiction, and for a llmited purpose. that ;uch sale can be contenplated......"

25. In the case of Andhra Cements Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabada, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad also in somewhat similar factual backcjrop following the judgment of Raj Sheel and Others (supra) held as under: "The question as to whether there is an agreement ta sell packing materia! is a pure .iuestion of fact depending upon the circumstances found in each case." In Jarnana Fiour & ail !\li!i (P. ) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1987] 65 STC 462 (SC), tne SLiprerne Ccurt hed considered the ratio in the before- mentioned cited case. In State cf Tamil Nadu v. E. i. D. Parryt (India) Lid. [1998] 109 STC 146 (l4ad) the fa.ts show that the respondent-dea ler had sold sugar, a controlled and exempted commodity. in gunny bags anci chemicals in plastic jerricans. The assessing authorit\/ brought to tax an estimated turnaler of gunny bags and the turnover of plastic jerricans for the years, which are relevant. He had disallowed the exemption under section 6(2) cf the Central Sales tax Act, 1956 for failure to file the declarations in form E-1. On appeal, the Appettate Assistant Commissioner had atlowed exemption on the gunny bags and confirmed the assessment order in other respects. The respondent appealed to the Tribunat contending far the first time that ti)ere v'!as no sale of the polythene t lzcls; sz vs: 431 : 2c1 s scc on.Lile Hv. 19) jerricans and that the deposits which were colle: customers therefor were returned when the cans wert) Department had filed enhancement petitions tn it turnover af gunny bags. The Tribunal had 1 enhancement petitions and ordered remand of the oe in two respects, i.e., in respect of the cclle:tion oi t sale oi chemicals in the polythene lerricans and ref,.t,'t as and when the said cans were returned, bes exemptian therefor ; and in respect of the exenption ( basis of El forms to consider the genuineness cr.t forms and to grant relief therefor. The High Court af answering the question-whether the gunny bags, in ,1 controlied commodity-is packed and sold s assessat I by including it in the turnover of the assessee, r"l sugar is exempt from tax hacj held as follovts (pa l STC): ed from the -eturned. The ;oect of the s,.nrs-sed the tier's appeals :;:osit for the I af ihe same des allowing aimed on the terwise of E7 f'ladras vvh ile hich sugar-a 'to sa les tax, en especially ' 153 in 149 "on the face of the rationale or reasontng, as prali tec in the decisions referred to above, it goes without saying hat in the instant case aiso, gunny bags, in which suEar ati exenpted commodity-is packed and solC cannot at all b! aid to be exempt from tax on the ground thai ihe cont:t ts of the container are exempt from tax." It is not cut cf place to state that in Raj Sheel case r 379 (SC) the Supreme Court upheld the validity of ser was inserted by Act 11 af 1984 and ha,l held that th€ vtas only clarificatory in nature and observed tha'. vlhether there was actual sa!e of coniainers or not t; fact to be determined on the facts of each case. l,-.; Cement Ltd. v. Ccmmercial Tax Officer, Miryatagtri' STC 169 (AP) , (1997) 24 APSTI 100, the constituii) section 6C after its amendment as amended by Act 2, effect from Aprll 1, 1995 feli for consideration. This c.L the constituticnal validity of the provision in the saro d, 9B9l 74 STC :ion 6C which ;a ici provision the question i question of her, in R aasi t19971 106 tal validity of af t995 with rt haC 'Jpheld cisicn. "

26. R.ecently, this High Ccurt again had an occasion r f hearing a similar matter in the case of M/s. Cement Corporation of Ir dia Ltd. vs. State Representative before the Sales Tax Appellate Tr bunal of Andhra Page 14 oF 16 - Pradesh at Hyderabad s wherein relying upon the judgment of Raj Sheel and Others (supra) and Andhra Cements Company Limited (supra) this High Court at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 has held as under:

9. Given the said findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Sheel ( 1 suprat and alsa the finCings given by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Andhra Cements Company Ltd. (11 supra), we find that the issue raised and challenged in the present Tax Revision Case is pari materia and therefore we are inchned to endorse the view taken by the Division Bench of thrs Court in M/s. Andhra Cements Conpany Ltd. (1i supra).

10. As a consequence, the inpugneo order oassed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rn T.A.No.1023 oi 1996 dated 11.10.2000 becomes unsustainable, and the same deserves tc be and is accordingly set aside. The Tax Revtsion Case stands allowed. The order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, dated 19.03.1996 for the Assessment Year 1993-94 stands affirmed. No costs."

27. Further, what is also reflected is that the STAT which has passed the impugned orders itself has in the past held that circumstances beyond doubt go to prove that ther-e was an implied conti-act of sale in respect of the disputed HDPE bags. and the tests laid down by the Supreme Court rn Raj Sheel and Others (siipra) were applied and satisfied. On a careful consideration of the relevant aspects, havrng dile regard to the totality of the facts and circr.imstances of the case, the STAT had held that it cannot persuade itself to accept the contention of the State for to endorse the views expressed Dy the lo\//er authorities lvhich were found by STAT to be erroneous in the above cited dlscussions. On the other hand, the STAT 5 Tax Revision Case No.128 ol 2OO4, decided ofl ii.09.2023 - was satisfied that the orders under appeal, rend(r ed by the lower authorities are erroneous, invalid and unsustainablr: as rhe disputed turnover relates to second sales of HDPE bags.

24. There is also no dispute that the assessee has prrchased the HDPE baqs from locally registered dealers who suffered tax ls is evident from the set off given to the assessee in the assessmenr' orders. When the assessees' are selling the same along with the cem: rt during relevant years cf assessment, the said HDPE bags are only s::.nc sales and as such the turnorrer pertaining to the cost of HDPE baLi, is not exigible to tax. On the other hand, it is eligible for exefitptron.

29. From all the facts and circumstances of the we are of the considered opinion that the findings given by the STA i insofar as the Tax ca ;e, Revision Case reflected at Sl.Nos.2 to B of the ti tle r-eproduced ln paragraph No.2 of this order is not sustainable and tir ) prirnary quest!on of law raised in these batch of cases so far as rivhei ler the HDPE bags t a iower rate or used for packing cement should be tax separatel) together with cement at a higher rate is ansurerec in favoi:r of the assessee and against ihe Revenue holding that i: nas to be taxed separately. The Tax Revision Case Nos.29, 40,42, 46, 68 & i00 of 2009 accordingiy stand partly allowed. !_ikewise, tl.t iax Revisi6n g65s I'to.229 of 2008 irrhich is filed by the State is cne whi h is in accordance with the judicial orecedents on the subject matter. Fr> the same reason, f-r the Tax Revision Case No.229 of 2008 being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed affirming the findings given by the STAT.

30. However, so far as the challenge by the assessee to the other questions Iike the diesel issued to the transporters on returnable basis which was not returned, levy of tax on undocumented fiy ash and levy of tax on freight relating to purchase of iron ore, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the assessee have failed to substantiate their contention, the questions so raised are decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue warranting no rnterference to the findings given by the STAT on these issues.

31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending ii any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. K SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTICN CFF!CER To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA (SC FOR COMMERICAL TAX) [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAIVREDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ly AD}(/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:16/10/2025 I COMMON ORDER TAX REVISION CASE No.229 of 2008; TAX REVISION CASE No.29 of 2009; TAX REVISION CASE No.40 of 2009; TAX REVISION CASE No.42 of 2009; TAX REVISION CASE No.43 of 2009; TAX REVISION CASE No.46 of 2009; TAX REVISION CASE No.68 of 2009; AND TAX REVISION CASE No.110 of 2OO9 Go i-)'t:') i 04 t,L ' I PARTLY ALLOWING THE TREVC Nos.29, 40,42,.t),46,68 & 110 of 2009 and DISMISSING THE TREVC No.229 of 2OOti WITHOUT COSTS ,l \[l \t/ :\ .r' \,(