The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader for Tax Gounsel for the Respondent: Sri Tarun Chaddha, counsel representing Sri S. Dwarakanath The Court made the following: ORDER ^ ,?^r"*'-'7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM K( )SHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHAL, I ATHI RAO TAX REVISION CAsE No.239 OF 20r)9 ORDER; rpcr llon'blc Sri Ju.srict' P.Sam Koshy) Heard Sri T.Chaitanya Kiran. learned Assistarrt (iovernment I'leader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Speci t[ (iovernment Pleader for Statc Tax, fbr the pctitioner and Sri Tarun Ci r ,ldha, learned counsol representing Sri S.Drvarakanath, learned cr .rr scl for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant Tax Revision Case has been prefemr..l bv the state undcr Section ll2 (1) read with Rulc l0 ol the Andhra P arLesh General Sales Tax Rules under Andhra Pradesh Gcneral Sales tx Aet, 1957 (flor short "the AP GST Act"). The challengc is to the c,r',:l:r passcd by the Sales 'l'ax Appellate Tribunal (for r;hor1 ''the I ibunal") in T.A.No.329 of 2004 decided on 0 I .05.2009. Y ide impu: r :d order, the Tribunal allowcd the appcal pref'errcd by the respor r.l :nt-Assessee setting aside the order, dated 09.12.2003, passed by lie Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division. i ,, lcrabad. 3 . The question of law agitated by the State Goi ::r nmcnt was whether the Tribunal .justified in holding that the ler,y of ,r. nalty under Section 5-B (ii) of the AP GST Act was justified or n, rt The u,hole issue revolves around the purchase of CO2 madc hy th. espondent- 2 ' ' -'-:.::.:r: ' Assessee in the course of manufacturing of products and selling the same.'lhe allegation was that the respondent-Assessee had purchased CO2 which was included in the G2 certificate had been got doleted from the G2 certitlcate and he continued to sell his product vide the same G2 certificate by issuing G- forms in respect of the sale made by it. In respect of the aloresaid allegation against the respondent- Asscssee, thcre is a categorical finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal would be revcaled fronr the hnding, which is reproduced hereunder:- "...tn the abovc case though the products are not included in G2 Registration Certificate, they rvere purchased and they were used in manufacturing the products. But the said products are not sold. But here, in the present case CO' has been included in G2 Certificate filed in the Tribunal indicated that Co'z has been deleted by the Commercial Tax Officer. Nacharam rvith effect from 28-12-1999- Hence, by the time CO' had been purchased by the appellant in fact it was included as one of the items in their G2 Certificate. Practically speaking. it cannot bc said that the appellant purchased product which was not referred in G2 Certiflcate. I'he G2 Certificarc does not say it would be valid subject to any GO issued by the Govemment from time to time. ln fact, on 19-8-1999 Craft-Paper was included as a additional commodity by commercial Tax Olficer, Nacharam, In fact, the additional Commodities were included by the Commercial 'Iax Ofhcer, Nactraram on 25-1 l-1997 and so much so on l9-8-1999 such as maizc Ftakes, Hy-Flosuper-cell, Phosphoric Acid and Adhesive, Bopp-tape & CraflPaper. Thc Commercial Tax Officer was aware ol' the fact that the govemment issued GO in 1996 But is spite of the said GO, the gas was not deleted by Commercial Tax Officcr, Nacharam on 25-1-1999 or at least on 19-8-1999 when additional commodities were added to G2 Certificate ofthe appellant. Therefore, under any circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant misused 'G' !'orms. During the assessment year Co2 and Ammonia Gas wcre very much present in the G2 Certificate issued in favour of the appellant. When Commercial tax ofTicer himself is not aware of the GO, the assessee, who is a lay-man cannot be found fault that a Go had been issued in 1996, preventing him from purchasing gases to use it in manufacturing process to avail concessional rate of taxation against 'G' forms. Apart from it, as already pointed out that Co'?, *hi"h hut been purchased by the appellant, was used lor && 3 manufactured of beer, but it was not re-sold Therefor' rrnder any circumstances, Section 5B(2) (ii) of the APGST Acr t anuot he invoked by the commercial fax ofhcer for Leq'ing perr I lt' Ilcnce' rcia[ 'fax we are ,lf the Opinion that the order passed by the Conr I Officer ConfirmerJ by Appellate Deputy Commission:rL is nol in accordance with law. The issue is therefore found in 1i'' t ur of the appellant and against the respondent." '

4. A plain reading of the aforesaid finding of fact ar' '/ )d at by the Tribunal could not be hetd to be either effoneous or lactl Ii lv incorrect or contrary to the records on materials that had plac,:ri betbrc the Tribunal. Leanrcd counsel fbr the State was not in a pc rt'on to sho\! any material with which it could be held that the said firrrli rg of lact to be contrary to the materials available on record or lactr 'rli) incorrcct- In the absenoe of which. we find it difficult to interdict t-: said order by holding it to be bad in law.

5. In view of the same, we are inclined to reject thr: I ax Revision Case and is, accordingly, rejectcd affirming the order ri ssed by thc Tribunal and holding the question of law against l, r State and in favour of the respondent-Assessee. 'fhere shall be L(-' order as to COSTS Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. ii any, shall stand closed Sd,- (. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 0; Secrrotr oFFlcER \ To, I 'l . The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal' Andhra Pradesh- \i7' lr:rabad' 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Divis r:rr' Hyderabad 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Nacharam Circle' 4. Two CCs to GP FOR TAX, High Court for the Sit;te of Telangana Hyderabad. [OUTI

5. One CC to Sri S. Dwarakanath, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 ORDER TREVC.No.239 of 2009 i 't0 lI ?flfr i ;l \i, REJECTING THE TAX REVISION CASE 1