TREVC/123/2010 of THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Vs M/S.SUGUNA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED on 21 January 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURAELE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TREVC NO: 123 OF 2010

Petition Under Section 22(1) READ WITH RULE 10 OF APGST RULES

U/S. APGST ACT to revise the order dated 2O-11-2008 in TA No. 773 ot 2006

on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ( CT) Warangal in Appeal No.

812612002-03 daled 24-10-2002 preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (CT ) LTU, Warangal Division, Warangal Dated 07-10-2006 in Asst. No 19630/1 999-2000 ( Penalty)

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the State Representative before STAT

O/o. D. No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER

AND

It//s. Suguna [Vlotors Private Limited, Hanumakonda, Warangal

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN, ASST. GOVT. PLEADER

REPRESENTING SRI SWAROOP OORILILLA

SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE TAX

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following ORDER :

IN TIIE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OI.'I I]LANGANA

A.I HYDERABAD

THE IIONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE P.SA]\I

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICI

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

I(OSHY

TREVC No.l23 OF 2010

21.01.2026

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the State Representative before STAT

D.No.5-4-404 ro 408, Nampally,

Andhra Pradesh, t{yderabad.

. . Petitioner

AND

M/s Suguna Motors Private Limited,

Hanumakonda, Warangal.

. Respondent

JUDGMENT: tper Hon ble Sri Justica P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, lear I :rl Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop O,t itilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the appellant and perused the record .1-.

(^)

2.

The instant is a tax revision case preforred by the State under Section 22(l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sale Tax Act, 1957

3.

The challenge is to the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal')

tn

T.A.No.773 of 2006, decided on 20.11.2008.

4.

Vide the said order. tlie 'lribunal had reversed the order passed by the Revisional Authority, who in tum had set aside the order passed by the Appellatc Deputy Commissioner.

5.

The Tribunal, in the course ol scrutinizing the documents, pleadings and submissions put-forth by the parties, found that, in fact, there was no material submission of suppression of the actual tum over by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the Revisional Authority had reached to the conclusion of suppression of actual turnover only on the basis of oonsidering the contents of ,{2 retums filed, rvithout processing and scrutinizing the actual book of accounts reflecting the actual tumovers which included the so called tum over which was not reflected in the ,A.2 returns.

The Tribunal found that once when in the actual book of accounts the tum over which was missing in the A2 ret lns also was reflected, the authorities ought to have properlv rcrutinizecl the actual book of accounts and had that occurred. tl: initiation of penalty proceedings would not have been required urd, therefore, rvhile allowing the appeal reversed the order of b.e Revisional Authority

6.

Today, ',vhen the matter is taken up for I t ering, upon a specific query being put to the learned counsel all e,aring for the appellant/State as to whether it is correct or not so I't rrs the finding of the Tribunal on the book of accounts pe '1 r:ning to the respondent/assessee reflecting the actual tumover:;. ncluding the turnovers which were not part of the A.2 returr i, the learned counsel fairly conceded that there is no materi: available to hold the said finding of the Tribunal to be either inc rnect or false.

Once when the categorical finding of fact is thzLt in the actual book of accounts the actual turnovers were alread r reported, then under no circumstances can it be said to be supprei ion of taxable tumover.

To,

n

7 .

In the given factual matrix of the case, we do not find any strong case made out by the appellant/State to hold the finding of the'Iribunal to be either erroneous or contrary to law

8.

The tax revision case thus tails and is rejected answering the qucstion ol law holding that the Tribunal was, in fact, justified in allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the penalty proceedings initiated by the respondent and imposition ol penalty was, in fact, unsustainable ' fhere shall be ho order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- N. SRIHARI

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/I

SECTION OFFICER

ellate Tribunal' Andhra Prade

Hyderabad

1 . The Sales Tax APP

2. The Appellate DePu

Sri SWAROOP OO

Court for the State

ty Commissioner (CT)

missioner (CT ) LTU'

RILILLA, SP

of Telangan

ecial Govt Pleader

a at HYderabad

Wa rang al

Warangal

for the State Tax' High

Division, Warangal

3. The Asslstant Com

5 Two CD CoPies

\il,,

V

KUL/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110112026