The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in nature of mandamus declaring the order of assessment di. 3O-1 1-2007 as illegal, without jurisdiction and hence inoperative, and , at any rate contrary to G'O'Ms No' 97' Revenue, d|.25-1-2003, and accordingly, set aside the same (ii) direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioners application dt. 21 -1-2008 expeditiously and (iii) interdict the respondent from enforcing the demand dt' 30-1 1-2007 ' 10F t- 3 OF 0 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs. g,og,21ot- in pursuance of the demand dt. 30-1 1-2007, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.CHAKRAPAN! Counsel for the Respondents : SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN, AGP REP. FOR SRI OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR COMMERCIAL The Court made the following ORDER a\ HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCEP.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.25544 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon'bte Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.S.Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondent.

2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed questioning the assessment order dated 30.1 I .2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer refusing to grant levy of tax at the concessional rate on the aluminium products sold by rhe petitioner inter-state .

3. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer would go to show that the Assessing Officer had refused to levy tax at the concessional rate as was envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.9l dated 25.01 .2003 holding that the said concessional rate of tax would be applicable only on raw aluminium and not on any other aluminium products. Hence, relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation v. The State of Uttar Pradeshr, the Assessing Officer had held that the petitioner cannot claim concessional rate of '4lsrct47 \ 2 interest on inter-state tax on aluminum rods, profiles, e>ltrusions, sheets etc., Subsequent to the passing of the order of the astiessment by the Assessing Officer i.e., on 30.11.2007, the Governrent of Andhra Pradesh issued another clarificatory Memo No.3l64lt-';tJI(1y2008-1, dated 18.01.2008. For ready reference, it would be moi'e appropriate if the contents of the Clarificatory Memo are reproduced ht:reunder " In the G.O.ltt read above, the Government have issued orders that the tax leviable on the Inter-State sales of Aluminium sha[[ be at the rate of l%o under the CST Act, 1956, provided such sales are covered by C'lD Form, w"e.f.25.01.2003. 2) In their representation 2nd cited, the Aluminiunr lndustry & Trade dealers have requested the Governnrerrt to issue clarification that the concession given in the s;iid G.O. is not restricted to Rarv Aluminium but applies to lrxtrusion, Sheet/Coils Atloy ingots and Wire Rods fallingl under the term "Aluminium" and are covered under G.O.Ms.No.97, Revenue (CT.ll) Department, dt.25.0 1.2003. 3) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is inlbrmed that the entry relating to Aluminium is at Sl.No.l50 ol' I " Schedule ot' APGST Act,W[{lCH READS AS Aluminium. brass, Copper and bronze and articles made t.here from but excluding utensils & kitchenware (as on 25.01.2003). 4l Therefore, the Govemment after careful exzLmination of the matter, hereby clarify that the concession granted in G.O.Ms.No.97, Revenue (CT.ll) Dept., dt.25.0t.2003. was given keeping in view the entry 150 and thc products of NALCO, in order to protect revenue pa1.'abie by local manufacturers. It is also hereby clarified that thc intention of the (iovernment is not to restrict application of the Ci.O.Ms.No.97 to raw Aluminium only.

5. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, r\.P.. [{yderabad is requested to take necessary action accordingly. \ t I -)

4.AptainreadingofthecontentsofthisClarificatoryMemodated 18.01.2008 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.3 l64lCT.ll(1y2008-1, it is apparently clear that what was intended by the Government was that except for Aluminium utensils and kitchen ware, all other form of Aluminium products would be charged at concessional rate of lo/o under the Central Sales Tax Act' 1956' The Government had, in very categorical tenns, held that the intention of the Government was not to restrict the application of G'o'Ms'No'97' dated 25.0|.2003, to raw Aluminium alone. tn that context, it has to be accepted that the products sold by the petitioner like Aluminium rods' profiles, extrusions, sheets etc', also would be charged at the concessional rate of lYoand the order of the Assessing Officer' therefore' would not be tenable in the light of the clarificatory Memo dated 1 8.0 1.2008 is concerned'

5.InviewoftheSame'weareinclinedtoallowtheWritPetition.. setting aside the impugned order of assessment dated 30'11'2007 and held that the petitioner was entitled for the levy of tax at the concessional rateintermsofG.o.Ms.No.9.7,dated25.o|.2oo3readwiththe Clarificatory Memo dated 18'01'2008 vide Memo No.3 t64lCT -It ( 1Y2008- I ' $ f t: I

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. ,r.here shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shail stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been absotute as above. witness the Hon'ble the chief Justice APARESH KUMAR sllNGH, on this Thursday, the Twenty fifth day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty five. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// { SECTION OFFICER

1. 2.

3. 4. The Commercial Tax Officer M.G. Road Circle, Two CCs to GP FOR COMM ERCIAL TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI S.CHAKRAPAN! , Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies a To SA LS ,__*rl \ -f iii:r li I. l /a k ( i..) 17 tlli'tl 2U5 ,;,...,-i-::L-1'\ * HIGH COURT DATEDi2ilAgl2025 ORDER WP.No.25544 of 2008 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.