TREVC/99/2010 of THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Vs M/S.SAI LEELA COLD STORAGE 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 SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 99 AND 100 OF 2010

T.R.E.V.C.No. 99 OF 2010 :

Revisron Case is filed under Section 22(1) Rlw Rule 10 of APGST Rules of APGST Act, 1957, against the order dt.9.02.2009 in T.A. No.606 of 2003 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for the assessment year 1997-98 preferred against the Order made in CCTs Ref . L. V. (a)/1028-4/2000 Dated 04.04.2003 on the file of Additional Commisstoner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad preferred against the Assistant Commercial Tax Offlcer-l Khammam against the order made in Proceedings on Rc. No.WGL/07/1/1634 Dated 06.01.1999

Between

p.by the State Representative before STAT, D.No.5-4-404 to a Pradesh, Hyderabad

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of AP, Re

408, Nampally, Andhr

M/s Sai Leela Cold Storage, Khammam, Khammam District

...RES'ONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T.CHAITANYA KIRAN REP. SRI SWAROOP

OORILLA, SPL.G.P FOR STATE TAX (SPL SC FOR CT)

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J.V.RAO

T.R.E.V.C.No. 100 OF 2010 :

Revision Case is filed under Section 22(1) Rlw Rule 10 of APGST Rules of APGST Act. 1957, against the order dt.9 02.2009 in T.A. No 1289 of 2003 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order made in CCT's Ref L.V (4\t1O28-6t2OOO Dated 12 C i 2003 on the file of Additional commissioner (cT) (Legal) office of commissioner c'commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad preferred against the Appellate I eputy commissioner (CT) Warangal against the order made rn Appeal No.215l98-!lS )ated 21'05 1999'

Between:

The State of AP, Re

408, Nampally, Andhr

p.by the State Representatrve before Sl \T

a Pradesh, Hyderabad

AND

tvl/s G K Cold Storage, 1'4-112, Bye-Pass Road lt/ahabubabal *1.r.fla*3!BitlEt-, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T.CHAITANYA KIRAN REF'' SRI SWAROOP

OORILLA, SPL.G.P FOR STATE TAX (SPL SC FOR CT)

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI J.V.RAO

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

D No.5-4-404 to

...PETITIONER

IN TIIT] HIGII COUR'I T.'OR 1'IIE, S'I-A'I'E OF'I'IiLANGANA

A'I-HYDERAI}AI)

.I'III.] HONOURABI,E SI{I JUS'I'ICE P.SAM KOSII\

ANI)

TTIE IIONOUITABI,E SRI JUSTICE

SUDDAI,A CHAI,APATII I RAO

I'REVC Nos.99 and 100 of 2010

l)utcd:15.12.2025

l'RliVC No.99 of 2010

lletu,cen:

'l he State of Arrtlhra Prarlcsh,

ILcp.bl' ttrc Statc [t cltrescn tat ive belirrc S] A'[', D.No.5-,+-404 ro 408.

Nanipally, Anclhra Pradesh, I lycleLabacl.

ANI)

... Pctitioner

M/s.Sai L.cela C'olcl Stolage,

Ciain Nlarkct Road, Khatttmarn,

Khanrmant District.

. . Responclent

COMMON OITDEIT (par l{on'blc Sri Ju.stice P.Sam Koshv)

Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Govertrttlent PleadcL t'cpr.csctrtitrg Mr.Srvat'oop Ooritta, learned Special Ciovcrnmcnt Plcadcr I'or State 'l'ax on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.J.V.t{ao, learued counsel fbr the respondents. Peruscd the record.

2. 'l lic-sc tu o Tax I(cvision ('ases att rtvolvillg sallte questiorr ol law raisccl by' thc Statc rvhile assailinl the trvo otders co lttttlt'ltt oldct

l. IItlrV('.No.()9 ol'2() l0 is a pctition assrril ng thc ortler ol'

STAT darc(i 09.02 2009 in

.1 .A.No.60(r ol- 2003. l{EVCl.No.l00

o1'20 l0 is l petition bv the State (iovc'r-,l,..r, as.;iri I nq thc order o1'

SI AT daterl 09 02.1009 in'l' A.No l2lt9 of 200.1

4. Thc issue involved in both these Tar R,: ision Cases is that dcmantl ol- penaltl, raisccl by tltc Dcpaftntcrtl .rn tlre alleged rnisuse olthe C-liornr at thc hancls of the respondeut - assessee fbr thc purposc ol constructiou ol'the Cold Storage.

5. Thc Assessing Autlrority initiated pena r'/ proccedings againsl thc rcsl-rondeuts asscssec coutcndiug that t rc rcspondents assessee lcct that thcy werc not in thc course o1- c.' rst[uction of a nranufircturing r,rnit bLrt rvcrc only constlucting a (' ,ld Storagc to passccl by tlrc S I'Al . Wc procccrl to rlccidc thcsc trvo cases bl rt

lnake use o1' ('-l'omrs issuecl in their lavour lor thc purposc ttf yrurchasing all nraterials at the couccssional price. The Assessing Olflccr at the Iirst irrstarrce llrft, his orrlcr tlatcd 06.0 1.1999 and I I .05. 1998 resl)cctivel\/ in the tu'o Revision Petitions passed thc ordcr ol- pe naltf imposing maximuur penalty pennissible uncler the statutc to the tunc ol'Rs.2,04,(r0-i,- and Rs.2,46,9 l0/- respectively in the tr.i,o asscssrncnt procccrlings. The lespondcnts assessec, tlrereaticr, iurnrcdiatcly pref'erred an appcal betbre the Appellate Deputy Cotnuissione t (r. 'l'he Alrpellate Deputy Clornmissioner in the course of dcciding thc t\\,o appeals lirlt' the t'espcctive orders dated 17.04.1999 and 21.05.1999, atier hearing the representatives of both the sides, reachcd to a conclusion that thc respondeuts assessce wcre under the bonaflde belief ol the Cold Storage which they u,erc constructing also would lre treated as a manufacturing tunit and in the process, tlrcy uscd the C-Forms for the purpose of purchasing materials at a concessiottal price. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner also reachcd to thc conclusion that immediately upon thc fact bcrng blought to thc notice ol rcspondcnts - assessee,

thev had inrnrcdiatclv acceptcd tlicir lault and thc :lbre ltresunred llrat thc |espolldcnts asscssce must hlr,c : adc good the tliffirenccs ilarry arrcl tlrcrc['rrrc thc Appc[latc Tr.il-.1 tral consi<ierinq bonalldc bclicl'and u,ith no ill-u,ill or lrad intcntion r.cversccl olc]cr ol'Assessing Authorrly whilc allorvinq thc aPPcal