The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Govemment Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader for the State Tax Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Shiraj Manyam, representing CH Pushyam Kiran The Court made the following: ORDER Frrt-"-":E t.. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.210 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Govemment Pleader for the State Tax, for the petitioner and Mr.Shriraj Manyam, leamed counsel representing Mr.Pushyam Kiran, leamed counsel lor the respondr:nt. Perused the record.

2. The present is a tax revision case under Section 22(1) of ttre Andhra Pradesh General Sales 'fax Act, 1957 prelerred by the State. The challenge is to the order passed by the leamed Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in 'fribunal Appeal No.1389 of 2003, decided on 02.03.2009

3. The question of larv raised by the State while assailing the order of the leamed STAT is rvhether G.O.Ms.).1o.533 dated

24.03.1984 provides exemption fiom payment of sales tax to products manulactured by the Wornen's Welfare Industrial 2 cooperative Societies arone or even to the dealers. who se s products manufactured by such Industrial Cooperative Societies.

4. For better understanding, it would be relevant to take note of the contents of the GoMs which is the bone of contention in the instant tax revision case. "ln exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of APGST Act, 1957, (Andhra pradesh Act Vl of 1957), the Governor of Andhra pradesh hereby exempts the sales of all products manufactured by the Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies in the State from the tax payable under the said Act with effect from 01 .04.1984"

5. The respondent/assessee is, in fact, on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Departurent and is a dealer of sale of voltage stabilizers. He has purchased the stabilizers from IWs sannihita Electronics Women's Welfare Cooperative Society. The assessee had claimed exemption of payment of tax under the ApGST law in terms ol the afiore relerred G.O.Ms.No.533 dated 24.03.19g4. The Cornrnercial ['ax Olfrcer initially had refused to grant exemption to the petitioner. [1owever, on an appeal, the Appellate r( :r,.,1: 3 Authority had allowed the appeal vide order datec 17.03.1999. However, the same was reversed by the Revisional A.uthority vide order dated 10.03.2003 restoring the order pa:;sed by the Commercial Tax Officer. However, on an appeal preferred by the assesssee before the leamed STAT, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Revisional Authority upholding the r>rder of the Appellate Authority.

6. What is undisputed in the instant case is the lact that the respondent/assessee is a dealer in the business of sale of stabilizers. It is also undisputed that the respondent/assessee se[[s stabilizers which he purchased from M/s Sannihita Electron cs Women's Welfare Cooperative Society. [n terms of the sale of -he stabilizers manufactured from the afore-mentioned Women's We []'are Society, the Society had claimed for exemption and which ir; the point of issue in the instant tax revision case also. The lt:a.rned STAT referring to the contents of the GO and reversing tht: order of the Revisional Authority has while deciding the issue hekl irs under: 'A reading of the above GO indicates that the gc,ods if they are manufactured by Women's Welfare Industrial Cooperative Societies, they are exempted from payment of 4 sales tax under APGST Act. The only rider for ilaiming exemption under the Act is that the goods must be manufactured by women welfare industrial cooperative society. The GO does not say that the goods shall be manufactured and sold by women welfare industrial cooperative society. If really the contention of the leamed State Representative is to be taken as true, the GO will be worded as follows: "The Govemor of Andhra pradesh hereby exempts the goods manufactured and sold by women welfare industrial coo perat ive socielrbs'l But the above wording has not been employed by the Government white issuing the said GO under Sec{ion 9(1) of APGST Ac{_ Probably in order to encourage the Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies, whatever the goods they manufacture are accorded exemption of sabs tax, whether they were sold by women welfare industrial cooperative society or for any other subsequent dealer. One cannot expect the goods manufacture by these societies can stand the competition for the goods which are being manufactured by reputed companies such as Voltas, Uni-Stab, V-Guard voltage stabilizers etc., Flence, it seems that to encourage this Sannihita Electronics Women Cooperative Sociely or such like other Women \Ablfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies, the Government issued a general GO covering alt the goods that are being manufactured according sales tax exemption, whenever they are marketed by any dealer in the open market. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a general GO issued by the Government granting exemption for all the products manufactured by the Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies whether they are sold by such society or by any ( 5 other dealer from payment of sales tax. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner clearly indicates that adm ttedly these voltage stabilizers are manufactured by Sarnihita Electronics Women Cooperative Society. Therefore in pursuance of GO.Ms.No.533. Revenue, dated 24-3-1984, the appellant is entitled to claim exemption from payment of sales tax on the sales of these voltage stabili;zers Accordingly this issue is found in favour of the appellant and against the revenue'.

7. Coming to the wordings of G.O.Ms.No.533 dated 24.03.1984 as h.rs been rightly discussed by the leamed STAT, rvhat is indicated is only granting exemption to the products rnanufactured by the Women Welfare Industrial Society. The GO does not in any manner restrict the effect of the said GO to the Women Welfare Industrial Cooperative Societies alone but also co',,e:rs the sale made by even dealers as we[[ or else it would had been specifically dealt with in the GO itself. The GO, on the plain ret,ding, gives a clearly indication of the intention of the Govemmer t to promote the products manufactured by the Women Wellart: [ndustrial Cooperative Societies. Nowhere does the GO also irdicate that apart from manufacturing these products, it is the resronsibility ol the said Cooperative Societies alone to havc also ci lried or,rt the sale so as to get the exemption. In the absence of any such 6 indication in the GO and the GO being a general GO granting a general exemption of all products manufactured irrespective of the agency who sells it, be it a dealer, be it the society themselves such products would stand exempted from payment of sales tax under the APGST Act. In view of the same, we are also of the considered opinion that the opinion arrived ar by the leamed STAT is proper, legal and justified and the question of law stands answered against the petitioner/State and in favour of the respondent/assessee. 8 The Tax Revision Case fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N SRIHARI OEPUTYREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad(With records, if any)

2. Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GP for tIrc State tax, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 3. One CC to SRI CH PUSHYAM KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies u ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER TREVC.No.210 of 2009 DISMISSING THE TREVC WITHOUT COSTS i-l p) I \'., ,t - 'i \ ,1. , ,' \7- _ -i\ ....' 1 7 rri\J 2tI25 Y 'rl \- \i,:- --i \:a1: - '-=:i'i