The High Court · 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Spl GP FOR STATE TAX Counsel for the Respondent: _ - _ - The Court made the following: ORDER ._€::_ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERAIIAD THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TRF:,VC No.l72 of 2010 Datez2,'ol'2026 Betr'cen: 'fhe Statc of Anclhra Pradcsh, Rep.bl' the State ltcpresentative betbre STAT., I'[1'dcrahacl. M/s.Viiaya Krishna Wines (P) Ltd.,Hyderabad And Petitioncr . . Resporrdent ORDER. (per Hon'ble Sri.lttstice P.Sam Koshy) I-'leard Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader fbr State Tax, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

2. l'he present is the Tax Revision Case filed under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, assailing the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), in T.A.No.1455 of 2004 decided on 01 .07.2009.

3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal while allorving the appeal of the Assessee has reversed the orders passed 2 by the Deputy Commissioner i.e. revisional order passed on

20.05.2004.

4. The allegation against the respondent-Assesse'e was that respondent was also operating with a different natne i.e. M/s.Vtjuyu Krishna Enterprises. Both of them were importing wine, liquor and beer for sale to be made within the State. fhe Commercial J'ax Officer vide assessment year 1993-94 had assessed the tax at Rs.38,01,634/- of which tax paid was Rs.35,85,112/- and the balance tax payable was Rs.2,16,5221-. However, the said order was revised by the revisional authority, in turn, fbund clubbed together the income of turnover of lWs.Vijayakrishna Enterprises along with turnover of IWs.Vijayakrishna Wines (P) Ltd., and held that the total purchase which stood escaped from assessment was Rs.5,23,55,7301-@ 29.70% was liable to be taxed amounting to Rs.1,55,49,651/- and the revisional authority ordered accordingly vide its order dated 04.08.1998. Subsequently, the said order dated

04.08.1998 was subjected to challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back for fresh disposal vide order dated 30.03.2001. Accordingly, the matter again travelled to the r.:i-ii;lE-+ :99-'.4Ff9,/ . ':11 { : ,,,/ --f 3 revisional authority, who, in tum passed the impugned order on

20.05.2004 al'finning its earlier order dated 04.08.1998 and this time by assessing the tax tumover at Rs.5,90,04,759/- @29.70% tax levied arnounting to Rs.1,75,24,4131-. It this order which is again challenged before the Tribunal vide T.A.No.l455 ol 2OO4 whiclr stood dccided on 01 .07 .2009 which is under challenge in the present'l'ax ReVision Case.

5. Upon penrsal of the findings given by the Tribunal, we have got no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the findings of the 'l-ribunal was in fact a finding of fact which specially stated that the revisional authority in the course of reaching to the conclusion of IWs.Vijavakrishna Enterprises and IWs.Vijayakrishna Wines (P) Ltd., jointly operating the same business and it was only the book of Accounts of M/s.Vijayakrishna Wines (P) Ltd., which was the registered dealcr, whose accounts maintained for the purpose of showing the taxable income and the turnover and income received by M/s.Vijayakrishna Enterprises was actually escaping the tax The Tribunal found that the Department failed to produce any iota of evidence to prove this contention of IWs.Vijayakrishna 4 Enterprises and Vijayakrishna Wines (P) I.td., operating the same business and the Tribunal also found that inspite of trnding one of the entitics operating illegally, no action so f,ar as for prrosecuting the establishment was initiated by the State authorities. [t was also the finding of the Tribunal that the order of the Deputy Commissioner lacking substantial contents so far as the alleged intport made by M/s.Vijayakrishna Enterprises was actually the impor-ts made in the narne of M/s.Vijayakrishna Wines (P) Ltd., In the absence of any material that can be produced before the Tribunal. to establish the contentions as also the evidence on the basis of the revisional authority had passed the order, the TribLrnal had no other option, but, to allow the appeal in favour of the Assessee. We find that inspite of such finding given by the Tribunal so far as the contents of the revisional authority's order lacking cogent material and cogent evidence, the petitioner-State even in the present Tax Revision Case also has not been able to substantiate the contention so far as to establish the findings of the revisional authority on one hand and also at the same time in establishing that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal to be 5 incorrect and irnproper. In the absence of any such materials available in the present I'ax Revision Case, more particularly, when the learned 'l'ribunal had alreadv on earlier occasion remanded the matter to the revisional authority for fresh consideration, we do not have an-v- other option to hold the finding arrived by the Tribunal proper, legal and justified.

6. The l.ax Revision Case devoid of merits and deserves to be and is accordingll' rejected. Therc shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheSatesTaxAppellateTribunal,AndhraPradesh,Hyderabad 2. one cc to Sri i,I;r""p oorilta, spr cp for State Tax, Advocate [oPUc] 3. Two CD CoPies ABK /PSt, Y{ t) t * ThiE S 14 2 5 r'lAH 2026 '* HIGH COURT DATED: 2710112026 ORDER TREVC.No.172 of 2010 REJECTING THE TREVC WITHOUT COSTS 6,PTL k-