Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/17638/2006 of M/S. RAVI TEJA STONE POLISHING INDUSTRIES, ANANTAPUR Vs THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER, HYD & 5 OTHERS on 8 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.17638, 17487, 17869 & 18069 of 2006 WRIT
APHC010355302006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.17638, 17487, 17869 & 18069 of 2006
WRIT PETITION NO: 17638/2006
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. M/S. RAVI TEJA STONE POLISHING INDUSTRIES, ANANTAPUR, TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, REDDY CHERLA BALAYELLIAH
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER HYD 5 OTHERS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER TAXES, HYDERABAD.
2. THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT, KURNOOL.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I, TADIPATRI
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, I.C. DISBURSEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, ANANTAPUR.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KURNOOL.
6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES, A.P. HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the impugned order dated 16-6-2006 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT ref No. L-III3/870/2004-1 for assessment year 1992-93 APSRTC as without jurisdiction, illegal, unjustified and consequently quash the said impugned proceeding dated 16-6-2006 passed by the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders as the Hon039ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 22116 OF 2006 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs. 34,932/- for assessment year 1992- 93, pursuant to the impugned order dated 16-6-2006 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT ref No. L-III(3)/870/2004-1, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DANTU SRINIVAS( SPL SC FOR CT)
2. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner, which was in the business of polishing and selling granite slabs and other stones, had been granted exemption from payment of sales tax to an extent of Rs.6,26,130/-, for a period of five (05) years from 24.07.1991 to 23.07.1996. However, the respondent authorities initiated assessment proceedings and steps for recovery of the amounts demanded, under the assessment proceedings for this period. The respondents took the stand that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit of the said exemption granted, under G.O.Ms.No.498, dated 16.10.1989, in view of the subsequent amendments to the G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 25.04.1991.
2. The petitioner had raised the contention that the subsequent amendment of the eligibility criteria would affect the case of the petitioner in view of the final eligibility certificate, which had been given by the 4th respondent. This issue had come up before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vetstar Agros Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer1, wherein the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court, had held that, the tax cannot be demanded, ignoring a duly issued final eligibility certificate.
3. A similar issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.2 , 1 [2001]124STC421(AP) 2 AIR2005SC3073, (2005)6SCC292
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had held that, the Department of Industries having accepted the tax payer in that case, as an industrial unit eligible for finance, could not have rejected the same, by virtue of subsequent developments.
4. Following the said judgments, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date: 09.03.2026 KPV
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.17638, 17487, 17869 & 18069 of 2006 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
09.03.2026
KPV