SRl. Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M v. B. S. NARASIMHA ANUDEEP

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. V. B. S. NARASIMHA ANUDEEP Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOW. PLEADER FOR STATE TA)( T.R.E.V.C. No. 34 of 2010 Tax Revision is filed under Section 22(1) of APGST ACT Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A.No. 420 of 2OO4,dt 2-09-2009 . Between: M/s. MAHA RASTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED, 2nd Floor, Vasavi Towers, 3-6-98, Main Road, West Marredpally, Secunderabad - 5O0 026 ...PETITIONER ----<v AND State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the State Represer t ,tive before STAT Hyderabad. ...RESPOill IENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY, SE \llOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. V. B. S. NAR,A ;IMHA ANUDEEP Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, S;l ECIAL GOW. PLEADER FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: , 1 THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TREVC.Nos.T and 34 of 2O1O COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble si Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao) Though these Tax Revision Cases arise out of separate assessment orders, since the petitioner and the ljs involved, are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These Tax Revision Cases are hled by petitioner/assessee assailing the orders passed by the learned Sales Tax Appella:-e Tribuna-l, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short the STAT') in TA.No.419 and 42O of 2OO4, dt.O2-O9.2OO9' relating to the asscssment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively.

3. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner/ assessee is engaged in the business of hire purchasing and leasing and is registered on the rolls of Commercial Ta-x Ofhcer, Marredpally Circle, Secunderabad (for short 'the Assessing Authority) under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957 (for short 'the Actl, and the c Assessing Authority, by order, dt. 16.11.199g, gr: rted exemption towards second sales turnover for 1995-96 baser on the deta*s furnished by it.

4. Subsequently, invoking power under Sectic -r V(4) of the Act, the Assessing Authority reopened the assess nent, issued a pre-assessment notice, and by orders, dt.21.01 .2Ct O, for both the assessment years disallowed the exemptions and Ii .ed tax liability on the assessee.

5. Assailing the said orders, the assessee hled rppeals before the Appetlate Deputy Commissioner (CT), pun1e1 utta Division, Hyderabad (for short qrhe appellate authority,) ul: u Appeal Nos. 542/7999-2000 and S43/tggg_OO and the sar c appeals were allowed by the appelrate authority uide orders t.23.o2.2ooo, restoring the exemption granted by the assessing zr rhority in the first assessment orders.

6. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner (( T), Legal, (for short 'the revisional authority), exercising ponrers Lnder Section 2O(21 of the Act issued notice proposing to revi: r, the orders passed by the appellate authority for both assessm( rt years, and thereafter, following due procedure, revised the orders passed by the appellate authority urde orders, dt'19'O2'2OO4'

7. The appellant/assessee has challenged the said revisional orders before the learned STAT uide TA'No'419 and 42O of 2OO4' and the learned STAT after appreciating the evidence on record has confrrmed the orders passed by the revisional authority' and assailing the same, the present tax revision cases are filed'

8. The following are the substantial questions of law(consolidatedinbothcases),u'hichfellforconsiderationbefore us: a) The order of the Sales Tax Appeltate Tribunal is contrary to law, material on record, unjust and unsustainable and its order is wholly vitiated thereby' b) The Tribunal failed to consider thc casc of the assessee in the correct perspectlve and in the light of the principles laid down in thL decided cases and its order is wholly vitiated thereby. failed to see (CT) Additional c) The Tribunal erred in Lcgal, Commissioner re-assessing the original assessment for the Ycar 1995- 96 by the where under the exemPtions were granted Authority without any perusal of the entire material, ord. including the written arguments available on rec that the Hyderabad failed to sce that orders relating to the d) The Tribunal of the ycars 1995-96 s'ithout any fresh transactions to ascertainment of the identification' enquiries as genulneness and existence of the dealers in 1998-99 and 4 1999-2OOO are unreasonable and dehors enquiries and the material and to the said t,t of re-assessment is wholly viLiated thereby. e) The Tribunal failed to see that th, Commissioner (CT) l,egal, Hyderabad, ( assessing the original assessment for the. where under the exemptio.r" *.r. g.u i Authority without arry perusal of the er r includrng the written arguments available orr f) The Tribunal failed to see that the z.r documentaqr evidence for the entire turn(f factually wholly incorrect to observe that thr: not do so. ng the said ect the order Additional 'red in re- ear 1995-96 ted by the re material, -ecord. sessee filed er and it is rssessee did

9. We have heard the a-rguments of Sri y.Sr nivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.\ .B.S.Narasimha Anudeep, counsel for the petitioner/assessee, ir rd Sri Srvaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent/Revenue.

10. The contention of the learned Senior Counr; I appearing for the petitioner/assessee, based on the above subs,, ntial questions of las', is of twofold.

11. Firstlg, it rvas contended that the revisional ar thority,s order, dt.lg.O2.2OO4, is barred by limitation, as the ar; essment order passed by the assessing authority was on 2r.or.2r 00, and under Section 20(21 of the Act, the period of limitation for. -evision is four 5 years. Hence, the revision made is beyond the said period' as such the revision is barred by limitation and liable to be set aside'

12. Secon-dlg, it was contended that while exercising powers under Section2O(2l,the revisional authority failed to consider the written submissions along with voluminous documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, showing that tax had already been paid by the first registered dealers on the disputed turnover relating to second sales and erroneously' reversed the well- considered findings of the lirst Appellate Authority' Further' the learned STAT has not appreciated the documents liled before it showing the payment of tax by the hrst registered dealers' Thus' it is contended that both the impugned orders of the learned STAT and the order of the revisional authority under Section 20(2) of the Act are liable to be set aside'

13. Per contra, Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Iearned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent/ Revenue submitted that the revisional authority revised the orders of the appellate authority, dt.23'O2'2OOO, but nol the original assessment orders, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and therefore, the revision orders passed 6 19 'o2.2oo4 , is within the four years limitation rrescribed under section 20(21 of the Act and as such the content cn of the learned Senior Counsel is untenable.

14. It was further submitted that the petitioner. ailed to prove its claim of exemption on the alleged second s eles by placing documentary evidence showing the payment cl tax at the first point of sale by the registered dealer a'd cor _ended that the findings of the learned STAT and the revision rl authority justified, well founded and needs no interference t r this Court a_re

15. Learned Special Government pleader furthe. if the petitioner/ assessee,s claim was genuine, l produced documents or evidence before this Cour their claim that the goods purchased by it had tax at the first point of sale by registered dealer.r them to exemption on second sales. The failure or petitioner/assesisee in doing so would clinchingly I is no evidence to substantiate their claim that t,l from the lirst registered dealers and thus, prayerl revlslon cases. contended that rey would have to substantiate Iready suffered , thus entitling the part of the rove that there : was collected to dismiss the , 7

16. We have given earnest considetation to the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the record' 17 . Coming to the hrst contention that the revisional orders' dt.lg.O2.2OO4 being barred by limitation' for convenience sake' Section 2O of the Act is extracted hereunder: - ..2o-Revisionby(CommissionerofCommercialTaxes}and other Prescribed authorities' (1) The (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) may suo motu th" t""ota of any order passed or call for arrd "x'-'ni bv anv authoritv'- officer or person ;;;;dd;"corded subordinate to it, uriaei Uce irovisions of this Act' including such order or (21' oi this section and if ;;;^;".t.t l" prejudiciar to the interests o[ ;;;;;;-;o'a"a revenue, may make suttt e"q"ity' or cause such enquiry to arid subject to the provisions.of this Act' mav ;;;;; initiate proceediog"io t""i""' todify ot set aside such order p..""'"atg *i *"y p"""'such order in reference thereto ", as it thinks fit' t2l Powers of the nature referred to in sub section (I) may also \/'' tv eaait""'r commissioner' or the joint or Assistant ti" bommercial rax-officer in the case by authorities' ;;";;;; Commissioner, p"p"ty Commissioner -- ;;;;i;"i;;"t'urra of orders p^"""a of p'oceedings .recorded officers or persons subordinat.e to them' section (2) shall not be exercised W tr'Jl""i'"tty 'specihea therein in respect of any issue ot q""tiit'-*ftict' is ttt<l subject matter o[ an aooealbefore,o''*JtJ"rt-*""decidedonappealby'the ni'perhte Tribunal under Section 2 1' ln relation to an-order of assessment passed under this Act' sections (r).and {2) shall be the powers ""t exercisable onv tJtil suctr perioa not excecding four vears from tfl" a#*ot *ftl"h th" otd"t was served on the 'de.l"r, a" maY be Prescribed' t4l No order shall be passed under sub section (1) or sub l'+' ".".,i"i- tii--L..rt-"iut'g any assessment unless an (2-A) The power under sub section (1) or "o''"tti"C (3) -sub 8 (s) (6) :pp9rt|lity has been given to the assessr:, to show cause agarnst the proposed enhancement. Wl:.: - order passed under this sectirr has been set aside by any court or other competent aut!: rrit5r under this Ac: for a:y. reason) the p"rioa tei*.e"* ii , jr"*""r *"r, order and the date on which it h"" ;;;; .. ""lXia. "uu *. :l1rl"o i, computine.the p",i.J;ir;;, ,"-l"lo"",n"a ", secrion (3) for the pu.pose of o lfi"g f.."h ::. ,:lo_ re\ rsron, rl any, under this secuon. arrv proceeding under this section hl been deferred !-here on account of anv stav order granted I f th. Spe"lat Appellate_ Tribunal in anli case, or by reasorr lf the fact that p "?,p.ul or other p.oceedins is d;dh;,; ,.JrlJ""o""r, Appellare Tribunal or the.-Supre-" -Co,, ,'irrlIurng , ::^yl1? or.law havins a direci b";;";; '.r,""1.o". proceedrng in quesrion. rhe period dUig , niJ il. .t.V ". order was in force o. .r"i *." pending shall be excluded rn computing th: period of four years specified in this secrion fo. ri" p;-.p;*; Ioili...,"i"e the power under this Section "pp"rr--o1";, ;;;;a 18' From a perusal 0f the record it is cleaf ul rt the revisional authority has revised the orders of the .F.1 pellate Deputy Commissioner, dt.23.O2.2OOO, as such the perioc )f limitation will start from 23.O2.2OOO and the revisional ord.ers dt.lg.O2.2OO4, passed under Sectio n 2O(2) of the Act, are well witl in the four year limitation period prescribed under Section 2crl )) of the Act. Therefore, the plea of limitation raised by the [earned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is untenable and rejecte j 19. Coming to the second contention of the earned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of the pt: itioner placing 9 voluminous documents in support of its claim for exemption on second sales, as the goods suffered tai at the point of first sale' the same has not been considered, a perusal of the orders of the revisional authority as well as the learned STAT indicate that both the authorities, who are fact f,rnding authorities after detailed examination of the records placed before it, have categorically held that the hrst registered dealers, from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased the goods, on verification' were found to be non-existent and unidentifrable and that the tax details of the alleged first dealers were also not produced by the petitioner to justify its claim for exemPtion'

20. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader for respondent/Revenue that' had the petitioner possessed relevant material/documents to prove that the goods were purchased from registered dealers' who had already paid tax' such evidence could have been produced before the revisional authority or the learned STAT, or at least before this Court' and failure to do so, at all the stages, further weakens the petitioner's contention that relevant material was not appreciated by the revisional authority as well as the learned STAT' 10 \

21. Hence, the contention of the learned counr; ,1. for the revision petitioners that the revisional authorit5r and ... e learned STAT failed to appreciate the material placed before thr m, appears to be untenable, more so, when both the fact findin5; authorities have concurrently held that the payment of tax at frrr; point of sale by the registered dealer is doubtful and not genuine.

22. Thus, this Court linds no force in the s I cmission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the goods had already suffered tax at the first point of sale L r the registered dealers arld the said contention of the petiti I rer was rightly disbelieved and rejected by the rearned srAT a. r the revisional authority.

23. In view o[ the above hndings, we lind no infir nity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the revisional arr horit5r and the learned STAT, warranting interference of thjs Court. The substantial questions of lau, are answerec against the petitioner/assessee and in favour of the responden /Revenue.

24. According$, both the Ta_x Revision Cases arc jismissed. order as to costs No , I i1 As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/. Sd/- K.SHYLESHI JOINT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Sates Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad 3- The Addl. Commissioner (CT), (Legal ) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad

4. The Commercial Tax Officer, Marredpally Circle, Secunderabad. 5. One CC to SRl. M V B S NARASIMHA ANUDEEP, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Govt. Pleader for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabd.

7. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:O111212O25 COMMON ORDER TREVC.Nos.T& 34 of2010 THE S T4 rJ( o.J r9 , .2, ; _'/ '\.*\l '7 ?t?l 7_ -+ 'Pr\-nl DISMISSING THE BOTH TAX REVISION CASES WITIIOUT COSTS A