The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran Assistant. Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special G.P for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Gh Pushyam Kiran The Court delivered the following: I i TIIE TIONO'URABLE SRI JUSTTCE P'SAM KOSHY AND TIIE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATHT RAO vCNo.1 OF JUDGMENT: (Pttr Hon'ble Sri Justice P'Sam Koshy) Heard Mr' T' Chaitanya Kiran' learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr' Swaroop Oorilla' Iearned SpecialGovernrnentPleaderforthestateTaxforthepetitioner and Mr. Shriraj, Iearned counsel representing Mr' cH'Pushyam Kiran, learned c'f,urlSol for the respondent' Perused the record'

2.TheprestntisataxrevisioncaseunderSectionz}(|)ofthe AndhraPrades]rGeneralSalesTaxAct,|g5Tpreferredbythe State. The chirllenge is to the order passed by the learned Sales TaxAppellateTribunal(STAT)inTribunalAppealNo.l3g0of 2003,decided on 02'03'2009'

3.Thequestionoflawraisedbythestatewhileassailingthe orderofthelearnedSTATiswhetherG.o.Ms.No.533dated 24.03.1984 provides exemption from payment of sales tax to products ma:rufactured by the Women's Welfare Industrial 2 \!\:'i\ - Cooperative Societies alone or even to the dealers who sells 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 confered 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

5. The respondent/assessee is, in fact, on the rolls of the Commercial rax Department 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 of the afore referred G.o.Ms.No.533 dated 24.03.1984. The commercial rax officer initially had refused to grant exemption to the petitioner. However, on an appeal, the Appellate 3 Authority had allowed the appeal vide order dated 17.03.1999. However, the same was reversed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 10.03.2003 restoring the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. However, on an appeal preferred by the assesssee before the learned STAT, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Revisional Authority upholding the order of the Appellate Authority.

6. Whrlt is undisputed in the instant case is the fact that the respondent/assessee is a dealer in the business of sale of stabilizers It is also undisputed that the respondent/assessee sells stabilizers which he purchased from IWs Sannihita Electronics Women's Welfare Cooperative Society. In terms of the sale of the stabilizers manufactu.red from the afore-mentioned Women's Welfare Society, the Society had claimed for exemption and which is the point of issue in the instant tax revision case also. The learned STAT referring to the contents of the GO and reversing the order of the Revisional Authority has while deciding the issue held as under: 'i\ reading of the above GO indicates that the goods if they are manufactured by Women's Welfare lndustrial Coocerative Societies, they are exempted from payment of J 4 sales tax under APGST Act. The only rider for claiming 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. lf really the contention of the learned State Representative is to be taken as true, the GO will be worded as follows: "The Govemor of Andhra Prbdesh hereby exempts the goods manufactured and sold by women welfare industrial cooperative sociefies'i But the above wording has not been employed by the Government while issuing the said GO under Section 9(1) of APGST Act. Probably in order to encourage the Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies, whatever the goods they manufacture are accorded exemption of sales 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., Hence, it seems that to encourage this Sannihita Electronics Women Cooperative Society or such like other Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies, the Government issued a geheral GO covering all 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 Arjditional commissioner clearly indicates that admittedly these voltage stabilizers are manufactured by Sannihita 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 stabilizers Accordingly this issue is found in favour of the appellant and against the revenue".

7. Coming the wordings of G.O.Ms.No.533 dated 24-03-1984 as has be,:n rightly discussed by the learned STAT, what is indicated ilt only granting exemption to the products manufactured by the Wornen Welfare Industrial Society. The GO does not in any manner restrict the effect of the said GO to the Wotnen Welfare lndustrial Cooperative Societies alone but also covers the sale made by e',ren dealers as well or else it would had been specifically dealt with in the GO itself. T'he GO, on the plain reading, gives a \ \ clearly indication of the intention of the Government to promote \ the produr:ts ,.manufactured by the Women Welfare lndustrial Cooperatile Societies. Nowhere does the GO also indicates that apafl from manufacturing these products, it is the responsibility of the said Cooperative Societies alone to have also carried out the sale so as to get the exemption. [n the absence of an1, such L, 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 rr 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 atby the learned srAT is proper, legal and justified and the question ol. larv 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. S D/.P.CH. NAGABH US HAM BA DEPUTY REGIS / //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, P

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Mr. Swaroop Oorilla Special G.P for State Tax [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ch Pushyam Kiran Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DL/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0611012C)25 ORDER TREVC.No.197 of 2009 ! SIA 5 0g rtB 2026 'fi' * DISMISSING TH|E TAX REVISION CASE \, \\