The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, AGP representing Special GP for State Tax Counsel for the ResPondent: The Court made the following: ORDER .,.- -. ,.<.. :-.-+l: "7 THE HONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE P.SA\{ KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. CHALIII,ATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.263 OF 2 Xr9 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, leamed Assistii rt Ciovernment Pleader representing learned Special Government P[:;der for State Tax, appearing for the appellant. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a tax revision case filed bv 'r,: State under Section 22(1) of APGST Act, 1957 challenging th, order dated

01.06.2009 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tr;Lunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in ' . \.No.1035 of

3. Vide the said order dated 01.06.2009, the leanr.'r'Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee settinl3 aside the order passed by the revisional authority dated 22.02.2002.

4. The revisional authority had held that the resJr.r dcnl-4rr.tr.. was liable to pay tax on groundnuts at the point of last p,rrcl-rase in the State. Whereas, the Commercial Tax Officer, had iririally granted exemption on payment of tax on the sale of gr o rndnut seeds 2 purchased from outside the State to the ryots in terms of G.O.Ms.No.604, dated 09.04.198 1. The revisional authority had held the respondent-assessee liable to pay tax on the ground that the respondent-assessee has failed to produce before the revisional authority any document to show that the groundnut seeds purchased by them from outside the State was either the certified seeds or truthfully labelled seeds and in the absence of any material produced before the revisional authority so far as the certification is concemed, the revisional authority held the respondent-assessee liable to pay tax on the tumover of sale of ground nuts by the respondent-assessee to the ryots. The respondent-assessee had in fact challenged the said finding of the revisional authority dated 22.02.2002 by way of appeal before the Tribunal v/e T.A.No.1035 of 2003, which stood decided vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2009. Vide the said impugned order, the Tribunal had reversed the finding of the revisional authority and it is this order which is challenged by the State before this Court by way of the instant tax revision case.

5. However, perusal of the record would go to show that the interference made by the Tribunal was not on the merits of the case dealing with the question of certification of the products sold by the \ \ -.r, *i.*'-a:::-z 3 respondent-assessee. Rather, the Tribunal, on perL*l r of the factual matrix of the case found that in fact, the show causr: n ttice issued by the revisional authority was not dealing with the asp,:::t of whether the ground nut seeds sold by the respondent-assessee u hich they had brought from outside the State are certified seeds or tn thfully labeled seeds. Neither was the respondent-assessee calli(l upon by the revisional authority to show whether the seeds sol t by them were either certified seeds or truthfullv labelled seeds,

6. The contents of the show cause notice seerr i to be entirely different than the finding which had been arrived at rr the revisional authority. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the con,:lusion that since the respondent-assessee has not been given a fal rpportunity of defence so far as the question of certification is conc.:r'r ed, the finding of the revisional authority to be not proper, Iegal arr,. ustified. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that wrg the authority initiates actlon against the assessee and the shou c ruse notice is issued, it is expected that the findings to be given bv the competent \ t authority has to be confined to the contents of the sh,rr.,cause notice. This, in other words, means a person cannot be inflicturr rvith an order detrimental or adverse to his interest, firstly, wrrh rut giving an I l 4 opportunity and secondly, on grounds which are not part and parcel of the contents of the show cause notice, rather, on new facts and grounds on which the assessee was never noticed. There was no plausible explanation which could be given by the leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader representing State holding that the finding of the Tribunal to be in any manner erroneous or contrary to the facts and materials that had come before the Tribunal.

7. In view thereof, leaving open the question of law raised by the learned Assistant Govemment Pleader representing State, the present Tax Revision Case deserves to be and is accordingly rejected conhrming the order passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Nizamabad Division, Hyderabad 3. Jhe Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Commercial Tax Officer-|, Nizamabad' 4. Two CCs to Special GP for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VH/PSL '"1. .--.-4;r:.*: _,+,r*arclrfiltnffi?*" -ffi HIGH COURT DATED: 2110812025 ORDER TRC.No.263 of 2009 I irlli 2$ffi :./' REJECTING THE TRC