The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy representing Sri. S Dwarakanath Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Government Pleader representing special Government Pleader for State Tax The Court made the following: ORDER / n IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGATIA AT Y )ERABAD THE, HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSF' AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CIIALAPIT 'HI RAO TAX REVISIO N CAS E No.287 of2009 D*e:3L.12.2O25 Between: M/s.SAE (lndia) Limited, Ghnapur Station, KaziPet, Warangal District, presently klrown as KLC Intemational Ltd., rep.by Dy.General lr4anager, Commercia[. And Statc of Andhra Pr adesh Rep.by its State Rcprescntativc Before Sales Nampally, Hyderabad. 'l-ax Appcllate Tribunal' Petitioner Respondent QBDEB, @er lton'ble Sri Jttstice P.Satn Koshy) Heard Mr.Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, leanLr I counsel representing Mr.S.Dwarakanath, leamed counsel for tt r petitioner and Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Govemnt' nt Pleader representing learned Special Govemment Pleader for S I le Tax, for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The present Tax Revision Case is preferred by tt : Assessee under Section 22( l) of the And!.rra Pradesh General Sal' s Tax Act, \ 2 1957 (for short" the APGST Act"). The challenge is to the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal"), Hyderabad in T.A.No.1675 of 2004, dated 03.08.2009.

3. Vide the impugned order, leamed Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee and in the process, the Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the revisional authority i.e. the Deputy Commiss ioner (CT), Warangal Division, dated 20 -05 -200 4.

4. At the outset, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner-Assessee while assailing the order contended that the order passed by the revisional authority is as such barred by limitation prescribed under the APGST Act and ought to have been set aside/quashed by the Tribunal. It was also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal had u,rongly recorded the petitioner to have waived their ground of challenging the revisional authority's order on the aspect of jurisdiction and limitation. However, infact, no such contention was raised or made on behalf of the petitioner waiving the ground of jurisdiction and limitation. He contends that since the Tribunal does not have the power to review its own order, he had no other remedy except to raise the said ground in the instant Tax Revision Case. To further substantiate his argument, I 3 he submits that the aspect of jurisdiction and limitatiorl could be found very well in the written submissions that the pet l oner had submitted before the Tribunal which itself would go to how that they were contesting the revisional authority's order on t e ground of limitation as well and that the observations made by th' Tribunal so far as waiving of submission made by the petitio er's. side before the Tribunal of waiving the ground of limitaticr to be an elToneous one.

5. So far as the relevant dates are concemed, the \ssessing Officer had passed the Assessment order on 31.03.2000 ' ,hich was served upon the Assessee-petitioner on 23.05.2000 in tr: ns of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20(3) of t} : APGST Act. The limitation u,ould start frorn 23.05.2000 and cc nes to an end on 22.05.2004. The revisional authority has passec the order showing the order to have been dated 20-05.2004. Ho ,rever, the authority who has signed the order has put the date I) neath the order which on the bare perusal from the naked eyes b1' he Bench appears to be either 29.05.2004 or 23'05.2004 and eit rer of the dates would be beyond the prescribed period of imitation. Moreover, the said order was infact served upon the p.' itioner on i i i I I I I I] 1 4 an inordinately delayed as such an 16.09.2004. Ihere does not seem to be any material available on record to show that the order infact was passed by the revisonal authority on 20.05.2004 itselfl it was immediately dispatched also to the petitioner. The fact that there is no material available to show the signing of the revisonal authority on 20.05.2004 and dispatching of the order to the petitioner immediately this fact forces this Bench to draw an adverse inference of the order likely to be ante dated order with 20.05.2004 being annexed in the order onry to show it to have been passed within the period of limitation. 6. This issue of limitation under similar circumstances came up for consideration before this very Bench itself recently in IREVC No.206 of 2009, d,ated,22.09.202-5. wherein it is held as under: ,,Thus, the Tribunal "i "jt ,"#.,Tr**, .U. un *t._Jut.o vie.w that prima facre the process of serving the final assessment order on [l" .".[.rj*a*.".r"" on_ 17.07.2000 appears to ,* rnrerence draun bv the Tribunai i";lJ;;j;;on a decision rendered by rhe Hon.bte,Sunlcme Coun i" if," J#.r Srale of Andhra pradesh vs. M & goo,p,;l' d; rerevant portion "r,* .r/i' ^l1T :ll:h :..1'h . bv the Hon'ble sup."-" court is reprodu""o r, .,An soughttot"*,*'f "J:;l[:.passed ,ir:;!";";:;';1":;,:,:r,,:ll":, assessntenl j"!,r?",y;; 1 0gg4) 93 s.T_c. 406 I i 5 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957- Ifu an order prejudicial to the assessee. The order was said to hct made on January 6, 1973, but it was served after the expiry years from the ddte of the a'\sessment order, on the asses November 21, 1973, t0 % months luler- There was no explanz the Deputy Commissioner why lhe service of the order t delayed. Held that, in the absence of any explanalion whalsot'r court must presume lhal the order was nol made on the purported to htne been mqde and thal it could have been nrut. lhe expiry of the period offtur yedrs prescribed for passing s order in revision. The order was bod. " f four ?e on on by 13 SO 'r, the ale it ch an

6. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to take note of )roviso to Section 24-A of the Act which prescribs limitation i I respect of certain assessments or re-assessments, which again lt ready reference is reproduced hereunder, viz., "24-A Limitation in resoect of cetilin 4ss,9 ;sztents or re-4ssesst7tents ordete d Notwithstanding anylhing in Sections l4 and 20 wfu assessment, re-assessment, reclifcation in or revision ossessmenl is made in respect of an ossessee or any Pel pursuance or in consequence (rf or b give effect to any fru direction contained in an order rnder Section 19, Section 20, 21, Section 22 or Scction 23 or in an order of any co't, proceeding, olherv'ise than by v'av of appeal or revision urt AcL such assessmenl, re-ossessme l. rectification in or revi:tia assessment shall be nade v'ithin three yedrs Irom the date of of such order by the ussessing or re|ising quthorily as lhe .a be. (Provided thal such order o;f appeal or order of any ct been subjected to -further appeal. either parlially or whollv there are orders of slay prohibiting the aulhority concerne(,' consequenlial orders, the period of lhree years shall be exler,c further period during which such stay orders were in force. )', further that d the subsequent appeal results in modificatiui an order of appeal or order v'hich is subjected to furlher c either partially or wholly, the period of three years shall be ct from the date of receipt of subsequent orders of appeal but t the dizte of receipt of the original orders of appeal or ordo *,0s subjected IoJurther appeal.) 'e an ,f o, m, in ng or 2ction ,r this r.,J an eceipl e may rl has md tf ) poss f such peals, t from

7. It appears that the petitioner-State has preferred thc Revision laying emphasis on the contents of Section 14 c I wherein the period of limitation for assessment to tax is fi)l However, the said Section 14 of the Act may not be accet) the simple reason that Section 24-A of the Act beir.1 obslante clause clearly holds that notwithstanding i referred to in Sections 14 and 20 of the Act where an instant the Act r years. rble for a non rything rder of ( ( ) ) 6 re-assessmenl rectificali^o1 or made wirhin rhe prescribed pe.ioa or rtrr.. i."| ii,""", levision is to be made, it has to be

7. The facts in the present case so far as the question of limitation is concerned being ahnost identical to the facts of this case, we are inclined to accept the view taken by this Bench in the aforesaid TREVC. As a consequence the trvo orders i.e. the order of leamed Tribunal in TA.No. i 67 5 of 2004 dared 03.0g.2009 and the order dated 20.05.2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warnagal, re'isional auihorit).,s order, both deserves to be and accordingly ser aside holdi ng them to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Tax Revision Case stands and allowed. No 8 costs. closed. conseqtbnity, miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand //TRUE COPYII '35,"",'ffiAHlH ,{ lt--./ SECTION OFF,CER j5lfi,;fr iru*fr+I[rj,*#'*t#,*y*; t To 1 2 3. 4. 5. PR,/psI HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025 ORDER TREVC.No.287 of 2009 ALLOWING THE TREVC WITHOUT COSTS \ :( IE STA , c) 1l ttBffi * cI spAt'