Telangana High Court
TREVC/137/2010 of THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs M/S. MAHENDRA RICE INDUSTRIES on 15 December 2025
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALACHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE NO: 137 OF 2O1O Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) Read with
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALACHALAPATHI RAO
TAX REVISION CASE NO: 137 OF 2O1O
Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules U/S.APGST Act to revise the order dated 23-06-2009 passed in T'A'No' 382 of 2004 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, 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. Mahendra Rice lndustries, Near Miryalaguda, Nalgonda. Settipalem-SO8 217'
...RESPONDENT/ APPellant
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T. CHAITANYA KIRAN , Asst. Govt. Pleader rePresenting sRI SWAROOP OORILLA SPECIAL GOW.
PLEADER FOR STATE TA)(
Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following ORDER:
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THB STATE OF TE I {NGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM X.I )SI]Y
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
Tax Revision Case No.l37 of 2010
Dated: 15.12.2025
Between:
The State ofAndhra Pradesh,
Rep. by the State Representative before STAT, D.No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, t{yderabad.
Petitioner
AND
M/s.Mahendra Rice Industries,
Near Miryalaguda, Nalgonda,
Settipalem - 508 217.
, i.espondent
ORDER: (pcr lton'ble Sri Jttsrice P.Sanr Ktslty)
Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant ( overnment Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learr r I
Special
Govemment Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the pt't tioner.
2.
The instant is the Tax Revision Case filed by tlt petitioner- State Government under Section 22(l) read with I ule l0 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for sh<,r "the GSl'
Act"). The order under challenge is that of the Tr l unal dated
23.06.2009 in T.A.No.382/2004 which has partly allowed the appeal so as to inclusion ol Rural Development Cess being treated as same component for the purpose of levying of tax.
3.
Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had partly aliowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-Assessee and partly dismissed the same. There were two questions of law which stood decided by the Tribunal.
4.
The present is the Tax Revision Case which had been filed assailing the only question of law which stood decided against the Revenue i.e., question No. I . The question No.l decided was whether collection of sales Tax levied on Rural Development Cess component is enforceable in terrns of G.O.Ms.Nos.95l and 952, dated 10.09.2003.
5.
For better understanding of the question raised by the State Govemment in the present Tax Revision Case, it would be more appropriate if we refer to G.O.Ms.Nos.95l and 952 which for ready reference reproduced hereunder:
" APGST Act. I957-Exemption from levy of sales tax on the Rural Development Cess component-Notification issued.
(G.O.Ms.No.95l, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Dt.10.09.2003)
ll
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub sectt I
of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales 'fa:r iesi 1a., vl of 1957), the Governor of Andhra l'ri hereby grants exemption from the levy of sales tax tl Rural D"evelopment Cess component of the purchase of Paddy by the Rice Millers, under the said Ac-t'-- N.S.Harihz
NOTIFICATION
1(l)
Act,
desl.r
r the
'alue
ran,
Principal Secretary to (l' vernment'
(4) G.O.Ms.No.952, Revenue (CT-II) I
Dt.10.9.2003.
"A.P.Rural DeveloPment Cess Act'
Waiver of demand relating to levy of I
Development Cess on actual purchase I
paid by millers over and above minimum stt price of paddy and also the outstanding al iowards sales tax on Rural Developmenl component till date-Orders-Issued'
rePt.:
iural
rices
lport
rears
Cess
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Government herebv waive the outsli ndine demand relatrng to levv of Rural Developmert Cess onactual purchase pflces paid bv millers otr r and above mrnlmum su ort rice of dd and zlro the outstandi ng arrears towards sales tax on Rural Development Cess co nent of Purchase Va ue of Padd till date. em hasis added
2. The Commissioner of Commercial laxes' Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is requested .r take necessary action, accordinglY- (By order and in the name of Governor of 1\ Idhra Pradesh). N.S. Hariharar, Principal Secretary to (l rvernment"'
,:
6. A plain reading of two G.Os would emphatically make things clear that so far as G.O.Ms.No.951, dated 10.09.2023 is concerned there was a clear exemption granted by the State Government from the levy of sales tax on the Rural Development Cess cornponent on the purchase value of paddy by the rice miller which makes the effect and operation of G.Os. jurisdiction with effect from 10.09.2003
7. Now coming to G.O.Ms.No.952, dated 10.09.2003, a reading of the same again would make it emphatically clear that by this G.O. the Government infact intended to waive the recovery of arrears towards sales tax on Rural Development Cess component on the purchase value of paddy, till date i.e. the date on which it is published which in the instant case was 10.09.2003. This in other way means the effect of G.O.Ms.NO.952 is granting of exemption or waiver for the previous years also. It is this fact which has been taken note of by the Tribunal in the course of allowing the revision petitions in favour of the assessee. There does not seem to be any good glound raised by the State Covemment to show that the frnding so amived at by the Tribunal is contrary to the intention of the Government in the course of passing of aforesaid mentioned two G.Os i.e. G.O.Ms.No.95l and 952, dated 10.09.2(tt 3. No case has been made out by the State Govemment to shc, , that there were any other G.Os. issued by the Government u,i:l which the Government could have levied either sales tax or :ould have recovered the arrears of the sales.tax on the Rural 1) :velopment Cess component. Moreover, the said finding given by I re Tribunal is strictly analyzin9 two G.Os which makes the fin,I ng of fact, which gives minimal scope of interference under Sect t n 22 of the GST Act. We do not find any case made calling for int :rference to the impugned order
8. The Tax Revision Case referred by the peri ioner-State accordingly stand rejected and the question of law de: ded by the Tribunal stands afhrmed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, i
- any, shall stand closed. I Sd.,. R. KARTHIKEYAN \ . otNT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// \ 1 . The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, !,ECTION OFFICER To, i tHlderr oad
2. Two CCs to SRl. SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL G.P. I OR STATE TAX Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies hrl ;x.v .4
HIGH COURT DATED:151'1212O25
ORDER
TREVC.No.i37 of 2010 REJECTING TREVC o() ll fi fEB 2026 / 'l 1rlE.- ( .-S:,.:.,' --'-,.,, Jrs aolfae (