TREVC/200/2010 of THE STATE OF A.P., HYDERABAD Vs M/S. BHAGYA LAXMI TIMBER SAW MILL on 30 December 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIUBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AN I)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 2OO OF 2O1O

Petition under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules U/S

APGST Act to revise the order dt. 06-08-2009 passed in TA No. 1504

of 2004 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P. Hyderabad.

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the State Representative before STAT D.No 5-4-404 to 408 Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

..PETITIONER/ Respondent

AND

M/s. Bhagya Laxmi Timber Saw t\/ill, Timber and Furniture Works, SVP Road., Warangal.

...RESPONDENT/ Appellant

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Govt. Pleader for the State Tax Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI S. DWARAKANATH

The Court made the following ORDER:

IN TI{E HIGII COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF T,1 -ANGANA

AT HYDERABAT)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAVI T OSHY

ANT)

THE HONOURABLE SRT.IUSTICE

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVTSION CASE No.200 OF 20lt

Dated:31.12.2025

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the State Representative before STAT, D.No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad.

AND

Petitioner

I\tVS.Bhagya Laxmi Timber Saw Mill,

Timber and Fumiture Works, SVP Road, Warangal.

Respondent

@EB:

Qter Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

This Tax Revision Case is filed by the petition: under Section 22(l) read, with Rule l0 of the Andhra Pradesh General 5 rles Tax Rules, 1957 praying the Court to revise the order datec 06.08.2009 in T.A.No.l504 of 2004 passed by the Sales Tax App llate'lribunal, \

Andka Pradesh, Hyderabad

2.

Heard Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Gort 'nment Pleader for the State Tax, for the petitioner and Mr.S.Dwarr :anath, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

To,

3.

From a perusal of the rccord it appears that the tax liability involved in the instant case against the respondent-Assessee is only {41,985.00. Taking into considcration the arnount of tax liability that is involved in the instant casc, rvc are of the considered opinion that the instant Revision is not worlh cnteftairring on the Iirnited ground itself.

Another reason why this Court is not inciined to cntertain the Revision case at this juncture is that the '[ax ltevision Case for an amount of {41,985.00 is pending since 2001 onrvards

4.

Therefore, for all the afbresaid reasons, the instant'fax Itevision Case is dismissed. No costs

5.

I{owever, we make it clear that the disposal o[ the instant tax revision case is being only on tlie ground that t[.re lnonetary implication involved and as such we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The substantive issue involved in the case would be left open to be decided in an appropriate casc

6.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/. N. SRIH

DEPUTY REG

R

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

Two CD CoPies

H:'"1?'rT$i,x"A3$'3sffi tfi :$:T:iBxlPreaderrorStaterax'

BlY: sSi[ a J]Sl 8*TKANArH' Advocate toPucr 'l .

2.

J

kul/kam Yt--

-:ffi

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212O25