The State of AP, Re v. M/s Sai Leela Cold Storage

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T.CHAITANYA KIRAN REP. SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL.G.P FOR STATE TAX (SPL SC FOR CT) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J.V.RAO T.R.E.V.C.No. 100 OF 2010 : Revision Case is filed under Section 22(1) Rlw Rule 10 of APGST Rules of APGST Act. 1957, against the order dt.9 02.2009 in T.A. No 1289 of 2003 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order made in CCT's Ref L.V (4\t1O28-6t2OOO Dated 12 C i 2003 on the file of Additional commissioner (cT) (Legal) office of commissioner c'commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad preferred against the Appellate I eputy commissioner (CT) Warangal against the order made rn Appeal No.215l98-!lS )ated 21'05 1999' Between: The State of AP, Re 408, Nampally, Andhr p.by the State Representatrve before Sl \T a Pradesh, Hyderabad D No.5-4-404 to ...PETITIONER AND tvl/s G K Cold Storage, 1'4-112, Bye-Pass Road lt/ahabubabal *1.r.fla*3!BitlEt-, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T.CHAITANYA KIRAN REF'' SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL.G.P FOR STATE TAX (SPL SC FOR CT) Counsel for the Respondent : SRI J.V.RAO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN TIIT] HIGII COUR'I T.'OR 1'IIE, S'I-A'I'E OF'I'IiLANGANA A'I-HYDERAI}AI) .I'III.] HONOURABI,E SI{I JUS'I'ICE P.SAM KOSII\ ANI) TTIE IIONOUITABI,E SRI JUSTICE SUDDAI,A CHAI,APATII I RAO I'RE VC Nos.99 and 100 of 2010 l)utcd:15.12.2025 l'RliVC No.99 of 2010 lletu,cen: 'l he State of Arrtlhra Prarlcsh, ILcp.bl' ttrc Statc [t cltrescn tat ive belirrc S] A'[', D.No.5-,+-404 ro 408. Nanipally, Anclhra Pradesh, I lycleLabacl. ... Pctitioner ANI) M/s.Sai L.cela C'olcl Stolage, Ciain Nlarkct Road, Khatttmarn, Khanrmant District. . . Responclent COMMON OITDEIT (par l{on'blc Sri Ju.stice P.Sam Koshv) Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Govertrttlent PleadcL t'cpr.csctrtitrg Mr.Srvat'oop Ooritta, learned Special Ciovcrnmcnt Plcadcr I'or State 'l'ax on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.J.V.t{ao, learued counsel fbr the respondents. Peruscd the record. 2

2. 'l lic-sc tu o Tax I(cvision ('ases att rtvolvillg sallte questiorr ol law raisccl by' thc Statc rvhile assailinl the trvo otders passccl by tlrc S I'Al . Wc procccrl to rlccidc thcsc trvo cases bl rt co lttttlt'ltt oldct l. IItlrV('.No.()9 ol'2() l0 is a pctition assrril ng thc ortler ol' STAT darc(i 09.02 2009 in .1 .A.No.60(r ol- 2003. l{EVCl.No.l00 o1'20 l0 is l petition bv the State (iovc'r-,l,..r, as.;iri I nq thc order o1' SI AT daterl 09 02.1009 in'l' A.No l2lt9 of 200.1

4. Thc issue involved in both these Tar R,: ision Cases is that dcmantl ol- penaltl, raisccl by tltc Dcpaftntcrtl .rn tlre alleged rnisuse olthe C-liornr at thc hancls of the respondeut - assessee fbr thc purposc ol constructiou ol'the Cold Storage.

5. Thc Assessing Autlrority initiated pena r'/ proccedings againsl thc rcsl-rondeuts asscssec coutcndiug that t rc rcspondents assessee lcct that thcy werc not in thc course o1- c.' rst[uction of a nranufircturing r,rnit bLrt rvcrc only constlucting a (' ,ld Storagc to 3 lnake use o1' ('-l'omrs issuecl in their lavour lor thc purposc ttf yrurchasing all nraterials at the couccssional price. The Assessing Olflccr at the Iirst irrstarrce llrft, his orrlcr tlatcd 06.0 1.1999 and I I .05. 1998 resl)cctivel\/ in the tu'o Revision Petitions passed thc ordcr ol- pe naltf imposing maximuur penalty pennissible uncler the statutc to the tunc ol'Rs.2,04,(r0-i,- and Rs.2,46,9 l0/- respectively in the tr.i,o asscssrncnt procccrlings. The lespondcnts assessec, tlrereaticr, iurnrcdiatcly pref'erred an appcal betbre the Appellate Deputy Cotnuissione t (r. 'l'he Alrpellate Deputy Clornmissioner in the course of dcciding thc t\\,o appeals lirlt' the t'espcctive orders dated

17.04.1999 and 21.05.1999, atier hearing the representatives of both the sides, reachcd to a conclusion that thc respondeuts assessce wcre under the bonaflde belief ol the Cold Storage which they u,erc constructing also would lre treated as a manufacturing tunit and in the process, tlrcy uscd the C-Forms for the purpose of purchasing materials at a concessiottal price. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner also reachcd to thc conclusion that immediately upon thc fact bcrng blought to thc notice ol rcspondcnts - assessee, 4 thev had inrnrcdiatclv acceptcd tlicir lault and thc :lbre ltresunred llrat thc |espolldcnts asscssce must hlr,c : adc good the tliffirenccs ilarry arrcl tlrcrc['rrrc thc Appc[latc Tr.il-.1 tral consi<ierinq tllc act on thc ltart ol'thc lesltonrlcnts assessot' I I ltc onc unrler bonalldc bclicl'and u,ith no ill-u,ill or lrad intcntion r.cversccl olc]cr ol'Assessing Authorrly whilc allorvinq thc aPPcal

1. I hc orck:r' ol' z\ppcllatc r\utltor-it1,, ro$,cvcr-, \\as subsccluently rcvcrscd by the RcvisiunaI Author-it,, r,ir1c its or-dcr <lated 04.04.2003 and 12.05.2003 r.cspccrively. It *z s rhis order o1' I{cvisional Authority rvlr iclr ri,as sutr.jccted to clr, llcnsc belbre S'lA'f in thc -[.A.Nos.60(r ol 200i and 1289 ol2(X) r.espectivelv. Iloth of which havc becn ciccidctl in lavour ol' csponclents - assessee vfulc order dated 09.02.2009. l.l. Having heard the lcarncd counscl fbr thc ,ctitioner and having perused the orders particularly the dctailecl or-lcr.passecl b1, thc S'I'AT rcvc.sing the order passcd by ,1,," ftgvi5i. ral .,\r-rthoritt, and rvhile affinnine the ordcr passed b1, thc Ap1-t tlate l)cpr"rty ('orr nt issioner, rve llnd that thc l-r ilrLrrral als. hrrs tul( l .olc of tltc 5 : I I i lact that tltc elcnrertt of rrcn.s /-('(r \\'as not clearly establislied by the said authorities befbre irnposing thc order ol pcnalty both by the Assessing AuthttLity at llre lirst irtstartcc as also b1' the Rer isional Authority subsequcntly. Thc 't'ribunal relyirrg upon the judicial preccdcnts so lar as rccltt it ett.tctt t of clerllcnt of rrtcrts r-czr in the coursc of imposing penllty, ltad rcversed thc ordcl ol l{evisional Autlrority in both thesc 'fax lter rsion Cascs. 'l'here cloes uot seem to be any strong material by tlrc petitioner - Statc rvith which it would had been rcf]ectcd that thc tincling uiven b1' the 'I'ribunal to be either perverse or contrary to thc scttled lcgaI position

9. In thc givcn lircts attd c irctt tl stallces, we do not lind any merits in the pctitior.r which the State has plcferred. Another reason which lalls in the nrind of' thc Bench not to intcrt'cre witli the impugned ordcl is the atrottut ot' penalty f-rrst of alt being 150% that has bcen lci,ied and seconclly, thc amount involvecl also is too rneager in both these 'l-ar Revision Cases. Iror that rcason also these Tax Revision Cascs stands disrnissed I 6 1(). i\ccorclingl-v, both thc 'lax Revisir., ( rtses stantl tlisnr isscd (-onscqLrcntly, nrisccllancor.rs pctitions pcnrlir :, il irnl , shall stan(l closed. I hcre shalI bc no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// St /- R.KARTHIKEYAN JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, l. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyc€ abad (with Records)

2. The Addrtional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad 3. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officerl Khammam 4. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warangal 5. One CC to Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, Advocate (OPUC) 6. One CC to Sn J.V.Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies KslPS t. w HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 COMMON ORDER TREVC.No.99 AND 100 of 2010 , ari::fI C i. () L) ) :\ 0 g rtB ?trz[ t^\glrt t' _; DISMISSING THE TREVCS. WITHOUT COSTS. .4"4\ COq Y\.' -^s"