TREVC/101/2010 of TEH STATE OF A.P., REP BY STAT, HYDERABAD Vs M/S. KAMINENI HOSPITALS LIMITED, 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 NNENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 101 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 02-07-2009 passed in T.A.No.877 of 2004 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh, R.ep by the State Representative before STAT D.No.

5-4404 to 408 Nampally, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad

..PETITIONER/ Respondent

AND

M/s. Kamineni Hospitals Limited, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

...RESPONDENT/ Appellant

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

REPRESENTING SRI SWAROOP OORILLA,

SPECIAL G.P. FOR THE STATE TAX

Counselfor the Respondent: SRI U. SAI PRAZWAL, REPRESENTING

SRI J. V. RAO

The Court made the following ORDER:

IN T HE I{IGH COURT IIOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT I{YDERABAD

]'HE HONOURABLE STII JTJSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

.THB HONOURABLT, SRI JUS'IICE

STJDDALA C HALT\PA.I.H I R;\O

REVISION CASFI No.l

F2

I

Datcd: r 5.l 2.202s

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by the State Representative bcfbrc ST'A-I', D.No.5-,{-404 to 408, Narnpally, Andhra lradesh, Hyclerabad.

ANT)

Petitioner

\

M/s.Karrineni Hospitals Lirnitec'|,

L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

Responclent

ORDEI|: @u IIon'ble Sri Justic.c P.SAM KOSIIY)

.

This 'fax Revision Case is filecl by the petitioner under Section 22(l) rqrd with Rule l0 of the Anclhra Pradesh ceneral Sales Tax Rules, 1957 playing the Court to revise the order dated 02.07.2009 in T.A.No.877 of 2004 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2.

F eard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop oorilla, leamed Special Governrnent Pleader for the State Tax, fbr the petitioner and Mr.U.Sai prazrval, learned counsel representing Mr.J.V.Rao, leanred counse I for the respondr:nt. Perused the record.

\

I'

3.

Frorn a perusal of the record it appears that the tax liability involved in the instant case against the respondent-Assessee is only <31,836.00. Taking into consideration the aurount of tax liability that is involved in the irtstant case, we are of the considered opinion that the itmtant Revisiort is Itot rvortlr enterlaining on the [irnitecl ground itself.

Another reason why this Cour-t is not inclinecl to entertain the Revision case at this juncture is that the Tax Revision Case tbr an arnount of 33 1,836:00 is pending since 2002 onwards.

4.

Therefore. 1'or all the afioresaid reasons, the instant Tax Revision Case is disrnissed. No costs.

5.

However. rve make it clear that the clisposal of the instant tax revision case. is being only on the ground that the rnonetary irnplication 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 decidccl in an apltropriate case.

6.

As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand _____ closed SD/- R.KARTHIKEYAN

JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

l.TheSalesTaxAppellateTribunal,AndhraPradesh,Hyderabad.

2.TwoCCStoSWARooPooRILLA,SPECIALGoVERNMENTFoRTHE

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

To,

3. One CC to SRI' J' V' RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

. 4. Two CD CoPies

W

!?,+_a*-. *'

/

/r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212025