TREVC/143/2010 of THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT,HYD Vs M/S TITAN INDUSTRIESL LIMITED, HYDERABAD. on 2 February 2026

ORDER

(per Hon'ble Si ,Justice P.SAM KOS,fff) The instant Tax Revision Case is filed by rlr petitioner under Section 22(1) read u'ith Rule 10 of Andhra Pradeslr (ieneral Sales Ta-x Act, I 957 praying the Court to revise the order c i ted 01. l2.2OO8 ln T.A.No.878 of 2OO7 passed by the Sales Tax I ppellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad {for short, 'the impug led order'|.

2. Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Ass stant Government Pleader representing learned Special Govemment l) eader for State Tax, for the petitioner

3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-Assessee and set aside the revisional order dated O4.O5.2OO7 in CCT'S Ref.L III(1)/1370/2OO4 passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (Revisional Authority); and conirrmed / restored the order dated 20.05.2003 in Appeal No.Al47 l2OO3-2OO4 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, by holding that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the revisional authority is barred by limitation.

4. Further, the Tribunal, in the course of passing the impugned order, had decided the appeal in favour of respondent-Assessee on two grounds, viz., (11 firstly, the order of assessment dated 18.O3.2003 in Asst.No.GI.No.1328l2OOO-0 1/CST lor the year 2000-0i passed by the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) LTU, Abids Division, Hyderabad is barred by limitation in terms of 2nd proviso to Section 14( 1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 which was in force during the relevant period of time; and secondly, the Tribunal while allowing the appeal also found that the respondent-Assessee had in fact filed invoices, dispatch bills, courier bitls, etc., besides the statutory form "Form 'F- by giving details of transactions and the mode of transportation in respect of the goods. The Tribunal further hetd that these documents which have , been furnished by the I ttI I

a+1ry respondent-Assessee prima facie establish the busi ress transaction arld which would reqtrire to be treated as'stock tr:rrr .lers'- Therefore, on the aforcsaid trvo grounds the Tribunal allorir I the appeal ln favour of respon<lent Assessee. The said grounds lLr ve been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-State ir the course of challenging the impugned order

5. However, this Bcnch finds that until arrd unlt,r s the question of la'"r' in respect of "period ol limitation" is answercc in favour of thc petitroner- State, the question of entering into the me -its of the case so far as veracitl,of "F" Forms submitted by the respo I lent-Assessee arc concerned need not be looked into. Accordingly, ',v I proceed to decidc the aspect of "period ol limitation" first

6. Some of the aclmitted factual matrix of the ( i se is the relevant dates rvhich would be necessary to decide the aspe< I of limitation

7. 'fhe assessment. order involved in the instant :ase is of the vear 2O00-2OO 1. The period of limitation prescribed fo - assessment of ta_x under 2nd proviso to Section 1a(1) of the Act is one v rar

8. For ready reference, 2"d proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act is reproduced hereunder, viz.,

"Provided further that the period for assessments under this sub- section shall be two years for the assessments relating to the year 1999-2000 and one year for the assessments relating to 2000-2001 and 2Oo1-20O2."

9. The date of expiry of assessment for the year 2OOO-2OO 1 or the period for passing the final assessment order gets expired on 31.03.200 1. ThereaJter, if at all an order under Section 14(1) was to be passed it ought to have been passed within one year from

31. O3.200 l, i.e., by 31.03.2OO2. Hor,r,ever, no final assessment order 1\'as passed during the intervening period bi' the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner had passed final assessment order lor the Assessment Year 2OOO-2OO 1 only on 18.O3.20O3. There was yet another period of limitation available with the petitioner, i.e., passing a final assessment order rvithin (15) days from the tax audit report being submitted. In the instant case, the tax audit report u'as submitted on

25. OI.2OO2 and in those circumstances the assessment order ought to have been passed within a further period of (15) days thereon, i.e., by

09. O2.2OO2 during which time also the final assessment order was not passed, and ultimately the assessment order was passed on 18.03.2003

10. lrarned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the audit report \r,as not filed and since omission of provision came w.e.f 01.04.200 l, for all practical purposes, the period olimitation has to j l l i I ! I I I ; ! i I I

be treated to be three J/ears as its stands from the tirr: the 2"d proviso to Section 14(1) stood omitted. However, learnt:ci counsel for the petitioner rlras not in a position to contradict tl c fact that thc assessment order involved in the instant case was 2('.)O-2OO1 and the 2nd proviso to Set:tion i4(l ) u,as in lorce tiil 31.03.24 ) 1 . Therefore, it was the 2nd pror,,iso s hich ri,ould have been the bzrs,r ; for determining the period of limitation arrd not the omitted portiorr rvhich came into force from 0l .04.200 1 onr,r,ards. This fact had ber r duly considered and decided by the Tribunal while passing the impugneci order .. Furlher. the learned counsel for the petitioner was I ,r irr a position to shor.r, that the 2n(r proviso to Section 14(1) would nc: be applicable to the facts of present case n,here the assessment or ler is that of the year 2OOO-200 1. In the absence of which, the finl ngs arrived at bv the Tribunal so far as the aspect of limitation is cor -:erned, cannot be found fault, and therefore the order passed by tJt: Tribunal stands a-fhrmed. Since thc assessment order, as held b1, t te Tribunal, is hit by the iaw of limitation and the same being barrerl by limitation, this Bench does not lind any good reason for entering in o the merits of the case and test the veracity of the 'F" Forms that ha ve been submitted by the re sponden t-A sse s see

11. For all the aforesaicl reasons, the present 'ax Revision Case stands decided on the aspect of limitation itself. The Tax Revision I I

Case preferred by the petitioner_State stands decided agajnst the petitioner-State arrd in favour of the respondent-Assessee, by the Tribunal by holding that the conlirming the order passed by assessment order passed by the assessing authority to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Tax Revision case stands dismissed. No CoStS L2. .As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending il any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, rabad

2. Turo CCs GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for th Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to lrrlr. S. Dwarakanath, Advocate topUCl

4. Two CD Copies Karn,rl ) [. tate of Telangana at t, ^ry

HIGH COURT DATED:0210212026

ORDER

TREVC.No.143 of 2010 DISMISSING THE TAX REVISION CASE : ;I41 r: tTCH J (.,, t t' ^L/ fl r ,!-. L, \a lii