Andhra Pradesh High Court
TRC/262/2003 of THE STATE OF AP Vs M/S MADHU SELVENT EXTRACTIONS [P] LTD. GOOTY on 22 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 262/2003 Between: 1. THE STATE OF
APHC010431302003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
TAX REVISION CASE NO: 262/2003
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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. THE STATE OF AP, STATE REPRRESENTAIVE BEFORE STAT D.NO.5-4-400 TO 404, NAMPALLY
...PETITIONER AND
1. M/S MADHU SELVENT EXTRACTIONS P LTD GOOTY, M/s Madhu Selvent Extractions [p] ltyd. Gooty Ananthapur Dist.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SPL GP FOR TAXES Counsel for the Respondent:
1. The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner.
2. The two issues, which came to be decided by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in favour of the dealer, and which are subject matters of the present revision are as follows:
1) Whether, the solvent extracted groundnut oil comes under the definition of groundnut oil obtained from groundnut cake or otherwise OR can it be considered as different item?
2) Whether, the appellant is eligible for refund of deferment tax to the tune of Rs.13.02 lakhs as per G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 25.04.1991?
3. The first issue has been decided in favour of the dealer, in a judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Rajashree Oils & Extractions vs. Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Kurnool And others1.
4. As far as the second question is concerned, the claim of the petitioner was that the petitioner was entitled to deferment, in paying the sales tax collected by the petitioner for a period of ten (10) years from 1992. The said period is over and any tax, collected by the respondent dealer, would have become payable by lapse of time.
1 1998(5) ALD 209; 1998 (5) ALT 9
5. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in this revision case.
6. Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is dismissed. 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: 23.02.2026 KA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
TAX REVISION CASE NO: 262/2003
Date: 23.02.2026 KA