TREVC/21/2011 of M/S A.L.SUDERSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. Vs STATE OF AP. REP.BY ITSSTATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT,HY. on 27 January 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TAX REVISION CASE Nos :20 and21 oF2011

T.R.C.No .2O ot fr11

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 21oF 2011

Tax Revision Case Under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sa|esTaxAc!lg5TtorevisetheorderoftheSalesTaxAppellateTribunal'

A.P. Hyderabad in T.A.No. 313 of 2006 , dated 1O-'11-2010'

Between:

lvl/s.P.L.RaiuConstructionsLimited,rep.byitsManag-ing.^DirectorMr.P.V.Raju iii". pi.it r.ii,.isz, rioiJtlo. zo, J ubilee H illi, Hvherabad-S0O 03 3'

PETITIONER

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its State Representative before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nampally, Hyderabad

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V' SIDDHARTH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPECIAL GOW'

PLEADER

Tax Revision Case Under Section 22 (11 ot the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Ac! '1957 to revise ttre oraer of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal' A'P'

XyaeraUaU in T.A.No. 650 of 20o7, dated t6{2-201o'

Between

M/s A.L.Sudershan Construction Co. Limited, 7-3-720, Secunderabad - 500 003 Rep. by its Company Secretary l'l 3d Floor, R.P. Road,

L.Kaladhar Reddy.

...PETITIONER

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its State Representative berl rre Sjtle-s_Tax APgellate Tribunal, Nampally, Hyderabad-

..RESFONDENT

Counsel for tfie Petitioner: SRl. \1. SIDOHARTH REDDY

Counsel forthe Respondent SRt SWAROOP OORILL!, SPECIAL GOW.

PLEADER

THE HONOI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO

NANDTKONDA

TREVC Nos.20and 21 of201l

Dated:27.0 1.2026

Between:

TREVC NO.20 of 20ll:

lWs.P.L.Raju Constructions Limited,

Plot No.437, Road No.20, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad - 500 033.

Rep by its Managing Director

Mr.P.V.Raju

. ..Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep by its State RePresentative,

Before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Nampalty, Hyderabad.

. . . Respondents

COMMON oRDER. (per Hon'bte Sri Jttstice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.V.Siddharth Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr-swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax appearing on behatf of the respondent in both the cases. Perused the record'

2. These are the two Tax Revision Cases preferred by the assessee assaiting two separate orders passed by leamed STAT in ,/

/

T.A.No.313 of 2006 decided on 10.II.2010 i.e.. impugned order in TREVC No.20 of 20il and T.A.No.650 o. 2007 decided on 16.02.2010 impugned order in TREVC No.2l ,t_ 2Oll.Since rhe ground of challenge in the instant two TRE\ r ts is onc and the same rather identicar in nature, we proce€d t. decide these two TREVCs by this common order.

3. The order under challenge in TREVC N: 2l ot20l I dated 16.02.20t0 infact was an order passed in two of th : .fA,s in respect of same assessee i.e., M/s.A.L.Sudharshan Cons r tction Company Limited. The present TREVCs happens to be or< of the petitions arising out of two orders under challenge. The as.r :ssee had infact challenged the other order also i.e., the order passr: t in T.A.No.65l of 2007 by way of said TREVCs i.e., TREVC No. , , of 201l.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up for heru ing, it has been brought to.the notice ofthe Bench that this High ( ourt infact has already dismissed the said TREVC No.l0 of 201 I v de order datel 27.08.201t.

5. Given the fact that the Division Bench of this Court earlier on 27.08.2011 has dismissed TREVC No.l0 of 2011 filed by one of the assessee challenging one of the impugned orders on identical set of facts, we are inclined to quote that the present two TREVCs also deserve to be disrnissed on similar terms as has been decided in TREVC No.l0 of 2011 decided on 27.08.2011.

6. In view of the same, the present TREVCs also deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/. N.SRIHARI

DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

l. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P. Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri V. Siddarth Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

3. Two CCs to Sri Swamop Oorill4 Special Govt- Pleader for State Tax, (OPUC)

4. Two C.D.Copies

Kul/PSL

To

I

HIGH COURT

DATEE:271O112O26