The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Government Pleader representing Special Government Pleader for the State Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THT] IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO I AX REVISION CASE No.222 of 20lr', ORDER: (per tTon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard lrrlr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader representing the leamed Special Govemment Pleader for the State Tax. for the petitioner and Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counscl for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. This tax revision case is preferred by the State assailing the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (STAT) in T,A No. 1074 of 2004,decided on 01.05.2009.

3. Vide the, impugned order, the leamed Tribunal has reversed the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and also the finding giv,.'n by the Commercial Tax Ofhcer dated 30.05.2003 and 20.04.2002 respectively.

4. The poir," of issue under consideration is as to whether the respondent could have enhanced the rate of tax from 2% to 4o/o with effect frorn 01.01.2000, after having issued the I-l certificate 2 in favour of the respondent-assessee for the entire year commencing fiom 01.04.1999 till 31.03.2000.

5. As per the factual details available on record, there does not seem to be any dispute so far as form Ll has been issued in favour of the respondent-assessee for the year commencing from

01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. There also does not seem to be any dispute so far as rate of tax applicable at the time of issuance of form Ll which was 2o/o on the tumover. There is also no dispute so far as the respondent having collected tax at the rute of ZYo on the turnover for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.12.1999. However, meanwhile, the rate of interest got revised from 2o/o to 4Yo with effect fiom 01.01.2000 onwards and the respondent authorities proceeded to levy tax at the enhanced rate of4% from

01.01.2000 onwards.

6. Initially, the Commercial Tax Officer accepted the contention that as per the request made by the respondent-assessee themselves for a composition of the tax under Section 5F for the whole period of 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 as is required. However, since there was a change of rate of tax under the APGST Act with effect ftom 01.01.2000 onwards, the Commercial Tax 3 Officer ordere,: for levy of tax at the enhanced rate of 4Ya from

01.01.2000 to 31.03.2000. The contention of the respondent- Commercial T,:x Officer was that once when the petitioner had undertaken to :,ay the tax under Section 5G, the resyrondent was duty bound to pay the tax whatever is fixed [:'r the State Govemment from time to time and, therefore, only because form L I was issuecl zri one point of time by itself cannot be a ground for the respondent not to pay the tax at a higher rate. Accordinglv, the objection raised by the assessee was rejected and it warj ordered fbr the assessee to pay tax for the period from 01.01.2000 to

31.03.2000 at a higher rate of 4Yo.'the said view ra,as affirmed by the Appellat,: Authority in the appeal. However, when the appellant challenged the same before the STAT and apprised the authorities so fltr as the provision of Section 5G and so also brought to the notice of the Tribunal the provision of Rule 6B of the APGST Rules, 1957 which deals with composition of tax in the case of dealers erecuting works contracts and referring to Clause 2 of the said Ru ,: 68 highlighting sub-clause (ii) of the said Clause 2 contentled that once when form Ll had been issued, the same has to be valid for the entire period to which it relates, which in the instant cas€ was valid from 0 I .04. I 999 to 3 I .03.2000. 4

7. Accepting the contention of the assessee, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal reversing the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and also by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and in course of deciding the same also took into consideration the decision of the Tribunal itself in the case of M/s LANCO CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., HYDERABAD vS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHT wherein an identical issue was decided against the Revenue by the Tribunal and which the Tribunal has not assailed any further and had by efflux of time attained finality.

8. Today also, when the matter was heard at length, we do not find any strong ground brought by the leamed counsel for the petitioner-State, firstly, to shorv as to how having issued form L1 fbr a period valid up to 31.03.2000, how could there be an enhanced claim of tax other than the rate that is reflected in the form Ll. Secondly, leamed counsel for the petitioner-State also could not produce on record to hold that the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Lanco Conslructions Ild., (supra) was reversed by any other subsequent judicial pronouncement either by the Tribunal itself or by any of the higher judicial forums. 1(2008) 46 APSTJ 174 -- 5

9. In the ter:th of the provisions of 68 2(ii) read with Section 5G of the APGIiT Act, supported with the decision rerrdered in the case of M/s Lanco Constructions Ltd., (supra),, we do not find the Tribunal to ha.,e committed any error in law or on facts while reversing the orrler of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as also that of the Commercial Tax Officer. The Tax Revision Case thus stands decided ragainst the State and in favour of the respondent- assessee. The same fails.

10. According,iy, the tax revision case stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending il any, shall stand closed. SD/ R.KARTHIKEYAN INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Comrnissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3. The Commercial fax Officer, Khairtabad Division, Hyderabad. 4. Two CCs to GF FOR TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to Mr. A.\/.A. Siva Kartikeya, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies Karni?SL

6. HIGH COUR'T DATED:0810912025 ORDER TREVC.No.222 of 2009 c.r. J 1r +..Y 1n urt itlt \ -\.==::jt-- ii.,'i'l REJECTING THE TAX REVISION CASE I o