CIVIL APPEAL 127 of 2004 on 29 July 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENTHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 127 OF 2004

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the State Representative before STAT,D.No. 5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Hyderabad

...PETITIONER

AND

M/s. Welcome Group Grand Bay, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam.

X

...RESPONDENT

Petition filed under Section 22(1), read with Rule[10][ of][ the][ AP][ General]Sales Tax U/S A.P General Sales Tax Act, to revise the orders passed by theSales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabadin their T.A.No.506/1999 dated25.02.2024, preferred against the Appeal No.VSP 355/98-99[on][ the][ file][ of]the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Kakinada, which was preferredagainst Assessment No. 10598/97-98onthefileof the Commercial TaxOffice,r, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANNEM VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, GPFOR COMMERCIAL TAXES

CpynselTorthe Respondent: SRI K,RAJI REDDYi-The Court made the following:

X

/■'/

/

%

APHC010543462004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3526]

PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYAAND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

TAX REVISION CASE No.127 of 2004

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by the State Representative beforeThe Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,,.Nampally, Hyderabad.•;./

... Petitioner.

AND

M/s.Welcome Group Grand Bay, Beach Road,Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:

I.Mr.Mannem Venkata Krishna Rao, G.P. for Commercial[Taxes]

Counsel for the Respondent:

I.Mr.K.Raji Reddy

The Court made the following ORDER: (per NJS,J)

Heard the learned Governrrient Pleader for Commercial Taxes.Norepresentation on behalf of the respondent assesses.

2.The present Tax Revision Case is filed against the order dated30.6.2003in Tax Appeal No.569 of 1998passedby the SalesTaxAppellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.3.The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnamissuedithefinalassessment order dated 29.7.1998 refusing theexemptions claimed bythe respondent assesseeinrespect of the turnover of Rs.4,97,810/-relating to purchase of live birds (chicks) as also in respect of the’turnoverof Rs.93,270/- relating to purchase of milk from unregistered dealers,which was converted into curd.Further, the CTOforfeited an amount ofRs.38,316/- towards excess tax alleged to have been collected by therespondent assessee.Aggrieved by the said30.6.2003in Tax Appeal No.569 of 1998passedby the SalesTaxAppellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.3.The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnamissuedithefinalassessment order dated 29.7.1998 refusing theexemptions claimed bythe respondent assesseeinrespect of the turnover of Rs.4,97,810/-relating to purchase of live birds (chicks) as also in respect of the’turnoverof Rs.93,270/- relating to purchase of milk from unregistered dealers,which was converted into curd.Further, the CTOforfeited an amount ofRs.38,316/- towards excess tax alleged to have been collected by therespondent assessee.Aggrieved by the said order,the respondentassessee preferred the appeal No.VSP.355/98-99 beforethe AppellateDeputy Commissioner (CT), Kakinada and thesame was dismissed videorder dated 31.12.1998.On further appeal, the Sales Tax AppellateTribunal vide its majority view dated 25.2.2004 partly allowed the appealand set aside the levy of tax on the turnovers relating to purchase ofchickens and purchase of milk from the unregistereddealers,butconfirmed the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.38,316/- towards excess taxCollected by the respondentassessee.assessee preferred the appeal No.VSP.355/98-99 beforethe AppellateDeputy Commissioner (CT), Kakinada and thesame was dismissed videorder dated 31.12.1998.On further appeal, the Sales Tax AppellateTribunal vide its majority view dated 25.2.2004 partly allowed the appealand set aside the levy of tax on the turnovers relating to purchase ofchickens and purchase of milk from the unregistereddealers,butconfirmed the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.38,316/- towards excess taxCollected by the respondentassessee.

4.The learned Government Pleader submits that despite the bestefforts of the officials of the Department, a copy of G.O.Ms.342, Revenue(CT.II) Department, dated 13.4.1994 as also a copy of the agreemententeredinto by the respondentassessee with regard to purchase ofchicken could not be secured.He submits that as the value of therevision petition is below Rs.50,000/- instead of deciding the issue onm&nits,this Court may consider closingof the case,sothattheDepartment would be in a position to agitate the matter,as similar casesare required to be adjudicated.

5.Considering the submissions made and keeping in view[the][ value]of the revision case, without examining the questions of law formulated,the Tax Revision Case is dismissed, leaving it open to the Department toagitatetheissuesinanappropriatecase.Noorderastocosts.Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand[closed.]of the revision case, without examining the questions of law formulated,the Tax Revision Case is dismissed, leaving it open to the Department toagitatetheissuesinanappropriatecase.Noorderastocosts.Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand[closed.]

Sd /- S.V.S.R. MURTHYJOINT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad

2. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh

3. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kakinada

4. The Commercial Tax Officer, China waltair, Visakhapatnam

5. One CC to Sri K Raji Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

^ [OUT?^^Commercial Tax, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

7. Three CD Copies

XMV

TF

HIGH COURT

DATED: 22/04/2025