TREVC/146/2010 of THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Vs M/S.FAMOUS ENTERPRISES on 15 December 2025

IN 'IIlF, HIGH COURT FOR'fHE SfAl-E OF I'ELANCANA AT HYDERABAD

lvlONDAY, THE Ftlr IEENTH DAY OF DECEIvIBER

T\,VO THOUSAND AND l WENTY FIVE

I)ilLSEN I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

l'ax Revisior-r Case No.146 of 2010

Iax rer.,ision filed unrler Section 22(1) read with Ruie 10 of APCST Rule's against tl.rt orcler tlated 21.11.2008 passecl in T.A.No.1153 of 2002 on the file oi thc Sales Ia.. r\P1)gllalg l'ribunal, Anrlhra l'raclesh, Hvclerabacl preicrrt'(l as.lrnst tlrr rrrr{er rl.rlctl 15.0q.2002 Lrassed in Appeal i.,"o.R/227 12001-20A2 on lhe file of thc Appt llak [)eps11, Commissioner (CT) Hvc{eralrad Rural Division, Hvderabatl.

LJetwr.crt:

The Statc of Andhra Pradesh, rep. bv thc Sales fax Appcllate Tribunal, before STA'I'

D.No.5-1-4i).1 to ,108, Nampallv, Andhra I)radesh, Hyderabad.

... Petitiorrer.

AND

M/s.Far.nous Enterprises, Balanagar, Hvderabad Responclent Counscl for the Petitioner: Sri T.Chaitanya Kiran( Spl. SC for Commercial Iaxes)

Counscl for the Respondent: Sri Karthik Ramana Puitam Reddy Ttrc Coutt Lnade the follon'ing: ORDER

tF-V

IN 'I'IIE HIGII COLIR't ITOR'I'IIE STATE OI t ,-I, \NCr\\I\

.\ I' I IYI)T]ITABAI)

TII [] I IONOLi IT,\ I}I,I.- S II I,IUS'I-ICli P.SAI I K()SHY

,\\t)

.I'HTi

I IONOUIT.,\BI,I.] SRI .IUS'I'ICt

SUDDAI,.\ ('II,\I,APATIII RAO

't'll.t.\'(' No.l{6 of 2010

D.rtcrl: I5.12.2025

Lle trveerr:

I hc State ol'Anrlhra I'ratlcsh.

Itep.by thc Statc Re 1t rcsen tat ii,c bclbrc S'l A-[.

I).No.5-4--+04 ro +0ti,

Narnpallv, Andhla [)raclesh. I Ivclcrirbacl.

[)etitioner

N NI)

M/s.Farnous Entcrplises,

[]a lanaga r', [J ydcr-at',lrtl.

l{esponrie ut

OItDE R (ptr I ltn lt!r Sri ..ltr.stit'c !' .\trn Koshr )

I leald i\4r. [.CItaitanva Kirarr, learncd Assista r (iovemnte nt Governnient Plcadcr fbr- Statc I'ax ou bchall- of thc ctitioucr. und Mr-.S.Dwar-aknath, Iear-nctl counscl lirl thc responclcnt . Pcrllsccl the rcco rd

I)leader represcnting lVIr.Su,aroop Oorilla, lcl r rcd Special

2. fhc ;r rescnt IS thc pctition lllccl r.rncler Section 22( t) read rvith Rulc l0 ol-APGST I{ulcs. 'l'hc ortlcr under challcnge IS OIlC

u hrch lias lrccn passed bv lcarncd Sl ,\ t in TA.No. I I 5] ol l00l Llccrclerl on ll. I l.l00li

3. l ilt' the said inrpugncd ordcr'. tlie Appellate -l'ribunal.

$ hilc allo$'rrrs tlrc appcal ol'a:,scssce. rcvcrscd the ordcr passccl b.v- the Appcllatc Deputy Conrnrissionet' datcd 25.09.2002

;1. I hc nrattcr pertains to the orclcl of penalty imposcd by ('onrnrcrcial Iax Oflrccr datcd 23.03.2000 toL the asscsslnent ycar 1996-91 . Ihc subsistent ground raisccl by the Lcspondent befbre the Ir.ibunal rvas tlrc orclel ol'pcnalty datcd 23.03.2000 being barled bv liuritation arrd onc *,hich rlas antcdatcd or atleast thcre is nt'r docr.rrnent to shorv that it is rrot antedatcd. The matter'l]cfiains to thc z\sscssrttcnt Year 1996-97. -l hc asscssment ycar is comple tcd on -l I .0i.2000. .l hc penaltv orcler could had becn lcvicd on or be tbrc I t.01.2000. l los c'n'er. the assessco was sen,ed \\,ith the order only on 25.10 2000 i.e.. afiel seven (7) rnonths Contcncling that thc orlcr of penalty lraving been'lld-sscd gettrnq otl f:.+i-1F

\\l

It tlrc pcr iocl

L lre said r,r'dcr

l0 - I 110 lo be onc

11.03.2000. tlrc SliLte took tlrc stan(l thlt it is ucll ol' lirnitation. IIou'ever'. rvhcn the saicl lcprescntati' u'us rlrrcctccl trr 1'rr-oVidc tlrc nrirlcIial (lrrcrrnrcnt to rcril\ thc corrl- i(ro so l.r'lls or(ler [reing *,iLhin iimitation l]articularly sceking Ir Llre prool'ol tlrc dispatch ol'orde r datcrl l-1.0i.2000. tlrc scrvice t rupon thc rcspontlcut asscsscc, the Statc took a L'i. '!oricll stirncl pertainirrg to thc passing ol tlr, rcrlrlt)- olrler-

5. [t was iu the giverr lirctua[ lrackrlrup that tir,r lrrbLrnal took the vierv tlrat the order dirtcd 23.03 ]0(10 rvltich is sa r l() lla\/e bcetl 2-5

rr,hich is apparcntly passed bcyon(1 i 1.0i.1000 antl al)l)ears rhat thc order to bc rneagcr anrl anteclatcd onc or atle,l i tlrcrc is no cogent material to shou, tlrat it rvas onc s,lirch rvas ,usscci rr,ithin

6. In viclv o1'the sante. we arc o1'thc consider',' opinion thaI

in the abscnce ol'any cogcnt ntatetial ou thc l)art of il :petitioner State to provc thcir case otherwise than that of thc tl rlinrt ln.ir. ccl tliat thc cntire li lc itself was not I raccirble.

scrved upou responden t

il :i sc sscc only

I irnitation.

on

at by thc -[r'ibunal. Wc are lclt rvith no other option but to disnriss tllc prescnt l'ux [{e'"'ision ('asc

7. Accorrlinslr. tlrc Ilrr 1191,isitrn C.asc stantls clisnrissed Consequcntly, rrrisccllaneous pctitions penrling, if any, shall stand closcd. I lrelc sh:rll bc rro ordcr irs to costs / /\RUE COPY//

SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

SEC IION OFFICER

To,

JCK/PSL

Y*

1. The Sales Tax Appellatc Tribunal, Ardhra Pradesh' I Iyderabad

2. The Appellate ueputv Commissioucr (C'f ) Hvderabad Rural Division'

HYderabad.

3. One CC to Sri T.Chaitanva Kir,rn ( SPI' SC ljOR 9i) Advocate IOPUC]

;. oir; aa io iri Karthik Rarnana I'uttam Reddy' Advocate [oPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies.

HICH COURT

DATF,D:15/72/2025