TREVC/94/2010 of THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Vs M/S.RASI CEMENT LIMITED on 15 December 2025

[ 348e 1

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 SRI JUSTIGE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 94 OF 2010

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) ot APGST Act Read with Rule 40 of APGST Rules revise the order dated 16.09.2008 passed in T.A.No. 1148 ol 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

O/o.D.No.54-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

..,PETITIONER

AND

M/s.Rasi Cement Limited, Vishnupuram, Miryalaguda.

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroopa , Special Government Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. S. Dwarakanath The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THI] III(;H COTII{T IIOIT THF] S'I'A'I'I] OI.'TELANGANA AT YDIiITABAI)

TIIE H()n'O[IRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAI\{ KOSHY

AND

.tHE HoNOURABLE SRI .IUSTICE SUDDALA CIIALAPATHI RAO

'l'.\X RItVISION CASE No.94 of 2010

D:rtt: | 5.12.2025

Between:

The State of Andlrra Pradesh

Rep.by the State Reprosentative beforc STAT, Hyderabad.

... Petitioncr

And

M/s. Raasi (lenrcnt Linritcd.

Mirayalagurla.

. . .Respondent

ORDER, (pL,r Hon llc Sri Justi<c P.Stm Koshy)

Heard Mr.'f.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Covemrnent Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Government Pleader for State Tax. lor the petitioner and Mr.S.Dwarakanath, leamed counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2.

The instant is the Tax Revision Case filed by the petitioner-State under Section 22( I ) read with Rule 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules (hereinalter relerred to as "APGST Rules") under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service lax 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 I 6.09.2008.

\

2

Vide lhe impugned order, the Tribunal had reversed the order of revisional authority dated 16.04.2002 in respect of the respondent-Assessee for the assessrnent year 1994-95. The learned Tribunal had reversed the order ol the revisional authority only on the ground of'revisional order been barred by lirnitation under Section 20 of the APGST Act.

1". Under Section 20 (3) of the APGS'| Act, the limitation prescribed for the revsional authority to revise the order passed by the Commercial Tax Olficer is lour years lrom the date on which the order of the Conunercial Tax Olficer is sewed upon the Assessec. Adurittedly, in the instant case, the Assessrnent order was passed on 27.03.1998. The said order rvas scrved upon the Assessee on 29.04.1998. Accordingly, the period of iirnitation fbr the revisional authority to revise thc ordcr frour the date ol- order or liorn the date ol service of order would have bcen either 26.03.2002 or 2tJ.04.2002. tn the instant case, the order of thc revisional authority is dated 16.04.2002.

However, the stand ol the lespondent-Assessee all along has bccu thc order ol revisional authority having not been issued on 16.04.2002 as has been clairned by the Departrnent rather it would only served upon the respondent-Assessee on I 1.09.2002. The case of the Assessee before the Tribunal itself was that either the order dated 16.04.2002is ante dated order, if at all, ifsuch an ordcr has been passed, it was only dispatched to the Assessee, tirncly, it has been lor tlre first tirne served only on 11.09.2002 and therefore, the effective date for counting the lirnitation would start frorn I 1.09.2002 and under these I

I

circulnstances. the order of the revisional authority has been rightly held to be barred by lirnitation by the learned Tribunal is the contention of the respondent. ln supporl ol lris contention, learned counsel for the respondent- Assessee subrnits that recently there have been couple of orders have been 2008 and TRUVC No.206 of'2009. Both of rvhich having been decided on 25.11.2025 and 22.09.2025 respectively, wherein, under similar circurnstances. this very Bench has hcld that order passed by the Tribunal without an1, sulllcicnt rnaterials to show of having dispatched the said order prornptly irnnrccliatel1, alier the sarne was passed on 16.04.2002 and in the absence ol no cogent matcrials being enclosed along with the instant Tax Revision C'ase also to sul)stantiate their contention that the order of the revisional authority has been issued within the period of lirnitation, we are of thc consiclered opinion that tlre instant Tax Revisron Case also one which w'ould stand srluarely coverctl bv the clecision rendered by this Bench in the af orernentionecl WP No.927 ol'2008 and 'f REVC.No.206 of 2009 supra

9.

For tho atirresaid relsons. the Tax Revision Case also fails and is accordingly dismissed. Therc shall be no order as to costs Pending uriscellaneous applications. il any, shall stand closed.

,TRUE COPY//

SD/- A.V.S.S.V.S.M-SARMA

JOINT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

, ,,?;*,." Tax Appe,ate Tribunal, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad. (With records passed by this very Bench on alrnost iclentical set of lacts in WP.No.921 ol I

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department,Nalgonda Division.

3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalguda.

4. One CC to Sri.Dwarakanath,Advocate (OPUC)

5. Two CCs to the Mr. Swaroopa Oorilla Special Government Pleader, Stale of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. Two CD copies.

Dl/psl

\

N/

----'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511212025