Dismissed

Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal v. M/S.Andhra Cement Co., Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2024TRC/166/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected a tax revision case. The court held that determining if cement was used for constructing a tank or plant is a question of fact, meaning no question of law arose, leading to the rejection of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The revision case stands rejected with no costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Vs M/S.Andhra Cement… — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND

¶5

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶6

TAX REVISION CASE No.166 of 2003

¶7

Petition under Section 22 (1) under Rule (10) under APGST Act, 1957 to revise the order dated 13/12/2001 made in T.A. No.21 of 1998 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada in Appeal No.VJA-ll/26/97-98, dated 21-10-1997 preferred against the proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer Seetharampuram, Vijayawada passed in G.l. No.2848/93-94 (APGST) dated 03/03/1997.

¶8

Between:

¶9

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

¶10

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Andhra Cement Co. Ltd., Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

... Respondent/Appellant

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : GP for Commercial Tax

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri G Narendra Chetty

¶16

The Court made the following:

REGISTRAR

// i

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶21

AND

¶22

•f
#
<br>V.

¶23

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶24

TAX REVISION CASE No. 166 of 2003

¶25

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the revisioner.

¶27

Whether Cement has been used in the construction of the

¶28

tank or for the construction of the plant is a question^offact.

¶29

¶30

No question of law arises.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the revision case stands rejected. No costs.

¶32

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶33

pending in the Tax Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶34

SDI- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶40

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada,^{KrishnaDistrict.}

¶41

The Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharampuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶42

Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of AP, Amaravati [OUT]

¶43

One CC to Sri G Narendra Chetty, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

Three CD Copies

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/08/2024

ORDER

TRC.No.166 of 2003

REJECTING THE TAX REVISION CASE

Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal v. M/S.Andhra Cement Co., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal v. M/S.Andhra Cement Co., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs S Revathi

Maddali Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Vs Maddali Nagavani

.S.Revathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Katragadda Koteswara Rao Vs Katragadda Lakshmi Anusha

Katragadda Koteswara Rao Vs Katragadda Lakshmi Anusha

Bikki Satyanarayana Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh