TREVC/102/2010 of THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT Vs M/S CENTURY PACKING, JEEDIMETLA, HYDERABAD. on 15 December 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 102 OF 2010

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) Read With Rule 10 of APGST Rules U/s. APGST Act to revise the order dated 7-11-2008 passed in T.A.No.925 ot 2002

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, Hyderabad.

...PErlrloNER

AND

M/s .Century Packing, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad

-..RESPONDENT

Counselfor the Petitioner: SRl. T. CHAITANYA KIRAN , ASST. G.P.

REPRESENTING SRI SWAROOP OORILLA,

SPECIAL G.P. FOR THE STATE TAX

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following ORDER:

IN ]]HE I{TGH COURT FOR THT] STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAT)

THII I-TONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAN{ KOSHY

AND

THE HONOTJRAI}LF- SITI .IUS'I'ICE

SUDDALA CHALAI'A'I'I I I RAO

TAX REVISION CASFI No.l02 OF

Datecl: 15.12.2025

Betwee:r

The State ol'Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the State Representative befbre S'l'A'l', D.No.5-4-404 to 408, Narnpally, Andhra Praclesh, Hyderabad.

AND

M/s.Century Packaging,

.leedimetla, Hyderabad.

20r 0

I)ctitioner

Responclent

ORDEI!: (par Hon'ble Sri Justicc P.SAM KOSIIY)

'l'l'ris Tax Revision Case is {iled by the petitioner urtder Section 22(l) read with Rule l0 of the Andhra Praclesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 praying the Court to revise the order dated 07.1 l.200tt in 'f.A.No.925 of 2002 passed by the Sales '[ax Appellate '['ribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2.

F.eard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, Ieamed Assistant Governruent Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Coverntnertt Pleader [or the State Tax, for the petitioner. Perused the record.

3.

l;rorn a perusal of the record it appears that the tax liability \

involved in the instant case against the respondent-Assessee is only

{5,241.00. Taking into consicleration the amount of tax liability that is involved in the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that the instant Revision is trot wortli entertaining on the lirnited ground itself.

Another reason why this Court is not inclined to enteftain tlte Revision case at this juncture is that the -fax Revision Case for an arnount of <5,241.00 is pending since 1999 or"rwards.

4.

Therefore, for alI the afbresaid reasons, the instant ]-ax Revision Case is disrnissed. No costs

5.

However, we rnake it clear that the disposal of the instant tax revision case is being only on the grouncl that the rnonetary ilnplication **

involved and as such we have not expressed any opinion on the rnerits of the case. The substantive issue involved in the case would be left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

6. " As a sequel, uriscellancous petitions, pcndiug if an1,, shalI stand closed.

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. Two CCs SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL G.P. FOR THE STATE

TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

3. Two CD Copies

KUL/PSL

w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511212025