WP/4933/2026 of M/s Global Aluminium Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana on 17 February 2026

1. The present writ petition sccms to be thc sccond round of litigation. The earlier round ol litigation being WP.No.24339 of 2023, whereby, the revisonal authority's order passed on 08.03.2023 was subiected to challenge. This Court considering the fact that the show-cause proceedings belore passing ol'the revisonal order, is the one which was issued was during Covid- 19 panderni : eft'ectively servcd upon the petitioner treating it tc principles of natural .lustioe, this Court allorvcd thc \ 2023 vide its ordcr dated 23.11.2023 remitting thc ni revisional authority to pass afresh order strictly in acc: after due scruliny of the contents of the repll, that furnish. Subsequent to which, the petitioner rvas cr before the aulhorities and after repeated opportunitics b c cntered appearancc with duly authorizcd rcpresenlali\ic i repll' and it has also furnished certain documents r contentions. Iollou,ing rvhich, the irnpugned order datc c been passed. u,hich is subjccted to challenge in thc pres:

4. The prirnary contention of the petirioncr is rhi. order is one. rvhich has been passed rvithout propcr ap l and without ploper scrutiny of the docurnents. rvhich t bcen relying upon and which have been producecl I respondent aftor the romand was made by this High { occasion. Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits t r had categoricalty pleadcd belore the authorities that Ior and in respect of the vory same sale. under the provisi,r Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for shoft "the VAI' Acl") could not be l,c violative ol , P.No.24339 ol ttcr back to the 'dance with lau, r:tilioner rvould lcd fbr hcaring ng given, it has -rd subrnittcd its support ol its ()6.01 .2026 has rr vvrit petilion. the irnpugned rcation ol rnind .: petitioner has ,rlbre the third Lrur[ on carlier I the petitioncr he same period . ol Telangana llte1, lravc been taxed at the rate of 5o/o and thercfore, in temrs of Section 8(2) of the Central Sales 'fax Act, 1956, the authoritics ought to have taxed the petitioner at similar rate ol 5%. lnstead, they had passcd an order levying tax at the rate of I 4.5%. Lcamed counsel lor the petitioner submits that the finding arrived at by the 3'd respondent is not in fact based on any materials produced by the petitioner. but, was based upon the materials that the authorities have derived on perusal of thc website of the petitioncr, which is further much subsequcnt period. Whereas, infact the authorities had to verily the recortls of the relevant period for reaching to the conclusion arived at.

5. It is lurther contended by the petitioner that the authorities have also gone on wrong directions presuming that the petitioner was claiming exemption in terms of C-fbrms that they are in their possession. Whereas, in fact, the petitioncr was not claiming any benefits based on C-florms that thcy have. rathcr, they r.vere only harping on the taxing to be done at the same rate under r.vhich they havc been taxed under the VAT Act.

6. Upon perusal of the rccords, more parlicularly, perusal of the impugned order, the finding of thc rcvisional aurhority is that the petitioner in fact have further processed thc aluminum extrusions by anodizing the sarne and also by powder coating ol the producLs and L

in the process. the goods become saleable goods anJ lhus. bocotnes lcviablc to tax at the rate ol 14.5't/;o in tenns ol thc l\ ::r,isions ol thc VAT Act itself. It is this finding of the pctitioner nderraking the process ol anodizing and powder coating, which the p, titioner- rather, categorically disputing contending that this anodizir;r and porvder coating part is being undertaken by the dealers, who pur rased from the petitioner, not by the petitioner itself and therelorc. thc linding is vitiated.

7. Be that as it may. since the impugned order lu t; a categorical finding of the reason, why the petitioner has been t .:ed at 14.5-clo. instead of 5%o as clairned by the petitioner and there is also another finding of the petitioner to have undertaken anodizir ;1 and porvder coating ol thc products, we are of the considercd opinio r that thc linding so arrived at is purely factual in naturc-

8. Given the fact that the finding is f'actual in natu. u,c are o[' the considered opinion that the petitioner ought to havc al r led the remcdl, ol-appeaI under Section 33 of the VAT Act. It is pertin: rl ro lncnri(,n at this juncture that though the petitioncr has been tr1,ir1 to pro.ject the prescnt impugned order 10 be one rvhich has been rassed rvithout application of mind and without due scrutiny of thc locuments and contentions put lorth by the petitioner. mol.e particul, rly, u,hen this

Court itsetf in the earlier round of litigation directcd the respondenl authorities to decide the matter afresh on due scrutiny ol the contcntions that the petitioner strall be raising, hou'ever. we are ol the considered opinion ttrat rightly or wrongly, there is a finding given by the authorities and the finding also is based on some reasoning which the revisional authority has provided. Whether the reasoning is fbctually correct or reasoning so arrived at infact was based upon the material belbre tl-re revisional authority or not or lactual in naturo. rvhich can only be looked into by the appellate forums exercising thc porvcr ol appeal, not under any circumstances, the wril Court can convert itself as fact finding agency sitting over the order ol revisional authority, more patlicularly. when the statute itsellprovides for a remcdy olappeal' g. In view olthe same. the view of this Court stands lortified frorn the decision of Dir.ision Bench of this High Court in thc case ol R'K' Distilleries Private Limited v. The Additional Conrmissioner of State Tax, Gr-Ir wherein, in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 it has been held as under: " 7. The aforesaid stattrtory provision of law rnakes it verv clear that there is a remedl oIappeal against an order passed under Section 32 of the Act- '[2022] 99GSTR 309.

8. ln the considered opinion of this (i,r petitiouer rvas heard by the revisional authority rr I the irnpugncd order, and the revisional aLr I jurisdictionally conrpetent to pass such an petitioner has to prefer an appeal keeping ir statutorv remedy of appeal available under the ,/., groLrnds raiscd bv the petitioner'"r,ill certainly be I b\ the appellate aulhority and the petitioner sha I place reliancc upon the judgmcnts of the Holr'l I Clourt as well as other judgments and to raisc a !rrrur,6. n"tor" the appellatc autlrori5. I, as thc le passing rritv rvas -der. the 'zieu the L All the rokcd into he frec to Supreme lpossiblc

9. l'his Court does not find any reason to int, rlere with thc impugned orders, in the lightof the lact thit lhere is a statutory remedy ofappeal available to the petitio r r.."

10. The instant $,rit petition, therefore, fails and clir;r afbresaid lihertl' kr the petitioner to avail the renr At this -iuncturc" learned counsel for the petitioner, pra.r of thc pre-deposit to be made at the time of appeal or conccssion bc made avaiiable to the petil.ioner. So f'ar ;Lr we are nof inclincd to entertain the said request at this ;] the petitioner r.vould be at liberty to approach the apr rvith an appropriate applicatior-r for the said relieI other\.\,ise providcs lor the same.'l'here shall be no ordcr; Misccllaneous applicat_ions pending, if,any, shall ; -rissed ra.,ith the ,Jy of appcal. fbr the rvaiver at least, sorne rhc said rclief. lge. I Io\4'ever. :llatc authority it, the statute :i [o costs. :rnd closed. //TRUE COPY// One CC to SRt SHRESTH AGARWAL, Advoca Two CCs to SRt SWAROOP OORILLA, SPEC|AL Gp F(,R STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana ,i Hvo'"irO"o'. ibUi' II . JAWAHAR REDDY ; IJTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, te [OPU

J PMK BS PAq Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:1710212026 '( o

ORDER

WP.No.4933 ot 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lHLi . l,'i ii ) c rl 'tJ ,)[ , SptT ( '#o lrlzl:'6 ' I *