TREVC/103/2010 of THE STATE OF A.P. Vs M/S. RAASI CEMENT LTD. on 15 December 2025

,

I

I

,

i

i

!

i

!

I

l

I

I

.

,

i

[ 348s I

lN THE HIGH CgURT FOR THE STATE OF TETINGANA

AT HYDERABAD

I\,IONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OFDECEIiBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TTA'ENTYfIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Tax Reviskrn Case under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST flules under Section APGST Act to revise the order dated 24.1L2008 passed in T.A.No.104512W2 on the fite of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Between:

The state Andhra Pradesh Rep.by the State Representative bebre STAT, D.No.

5-4-404 b 408, Nampally, Andtra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

.Petitioner

Etm

M/s. Raasi Cement LTD., Vishnupuram, Miryalaguda.

...Respondent

counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. chaitanya Kiran Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroopa Oorilla Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. S. Dwarakanath The Court made the following: ORIIER

I

IN THE HIGII COTJRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAI)

AND

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHAI,APATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE No.103 of 2010

Date:15.12.2025

Between:

The State ol'Andhra Pradesh

Rep.by the litate Representative before STAT, Hyderabad.

....Petitioner

And

lvI/s.Raasi Cement Limited,

Mirayalagucla.

.Respondent

ORDER' 'lper Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Govemment'Pleader representinl; Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the petitioner and Mr.S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2.

The :instant is the Tax Revision Case filed by the petitioner-State under Section 22(l) reacl with Rule l0 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as "APGST Rules") under the Andhra Pradesh Go,rds and Service Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'APGST

Act') challenging the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), decided on 19.12.2008.

-:-:,:1

.+---.;-

3.

Vide the impugned order, fte Triqnal had reversed ttre order of revisional authority dated 16.04.2002 in respecl of the respondent-Assessee for the assessrnent year 1994-95. Th€ learned Tribunal had reversed the order of the revisional authority only on the grqlnd of revisional order been barred by limitation under Section 20 of ttre APGST Act.

J+. Under Section 20 (3) of the APGST Act, ttre timitation prescribed for the revsional authority to revise the order passed by the Comrnercial Tax Officer is four years frorn tlre date on which the order of the Commercial Tax Oflicer is served upon the Assessee. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Assessment order was passed on27.03.199E.. The said or&r was served upon the Assessee on 2g.A4|Dg8. Accordingly, the period of limitation for the revisional authority to revise the order from the date of order or from the date of service of order would have been either 76.03.2002 or 28.04.2002. {n the instant case, the order of ttre revisional authority is dated 16.04.2002.

However, the stand of the respondent-Assesree all along has been the order of revisional authority having not been issued oi 16.O4.2002 as has been claimed by the Departrnent rather it would only served upon the respondent-Assessee on I I .Oq.}OOL. The case of the Assessee before tlre Tribunal itself was that eittrer theorder dated 16.04.2002 is antedated order, if at all, if such an order has been passed, it was only dispatched to the Assessee, timely, it has been for the frrst tirne served only on 11.09.2002 and therefore, the effective date for counting the lirnitation would start from 11.W.2002 and under these \

\

I

i

\

\

\

.,

circumstances, the order of the revisional authority has been rightly held to be barred b'y limitation by the leamed Tribunal is the contention of ,the respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent- Assesbee submits that recently there have been couple of orders have been passed by this very Bench on almost identical set of facts in WP.N<i.927 of 2008 and rndvC No.206 of 2009. Both of which having been decided on 25.11.2025 and 22.09.2025 respectively, wherein, under similar 'circumstarrces, this very Bench has held that order passed by the Tribunal withrcut any sufficient materials to show of having dispatched thc said order promptly :.mmediately after the same was passed on 16.04.2002 and in the absence of no cogent materials being enclosed along with the instant Tax Revision tlase also to substantiate their contention that the order of the revisional authority has been issued within the period of limitatio4 we are of the considered opinion that the instant Tax Revision Case also one which would stand squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Bench in the aforementirned WP.No.927 of 2008 and TREVC.No.206 of 2009 supra.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Tax Revision Case also fails ani is according\, dl5missed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

sdr- K. sRtt{lvAsARAO

//TRI'E COPY//

I