Allowed¶44

M/S. Ravi Teja Stone Polishing Industries, Anantapur v. the Addl. Commissioner, Hyd & 5 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Mar 2026WP/17638/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati) 09.03.2026; writ petitions Nos.17638, 17487, 17869 & 18069 of 2006; sales-tax exemption; industrial incentives; G.O.Ms.No.498 dated 16.10.1989; G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 25.04.1991; final eligibility certificate; assessment year 1992-93; granite polishing, Tadipatri, Anantapur; Vetstar Agros Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [2001] 124 STC 421 (AP); Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 6 SCC 292; Article 226; Section 151 CPC; disputed tax Rs.34,932; impugned order dated 16-6-2006 set aside; writ allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed as a sequel. ¶44

M/S. Ravi Teja Stone Polishing Industries… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed as a sequel.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose exemption under G.O.Ms.No.498 was supported by a final eligibility certificate issued before the subsequent amendment of eligibility criteria under G.O.Ms.No.146, could be subjected to assessment and recovery notwithstanding that certificate. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

Following the judgments in Vetstar Agros Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The impugned orders dated 16-6-2006 were accordingly invalidated and set aside, disposing of the challenge that they were without jurisdiction, illegal and unjustified; there is no order as to costs.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of four writ petitions (W.P. Nos.17638, 17487, 17869 & 18069 of 2006) before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, disposed of by a common order dated 09.03.2026 authored by R. Raghunandan Rao, J (bench: R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ). The petitioner, engaged in polishing and selling granite slabs, had been granted sales-tax exemption of Rs.6,26,130/- for five years (24.07.1991 to 23.07.1996) under G.O.Ms.No.498, dated 16.10.1989, backed by a final eligibility certificate from the 4th respondent. The commercial-tax authorities nonetheless assessed and sought recovery for the period, taking the stand that subsequent amendments to G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 25.04.1991, made the petitioner ineligible for the exemption. Following Vetstar Agros Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer ([2001] 124 STC 421 (AP)) — tax cannot be demanded ignoring a duly issued final eligibility certificate — and Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2005) 6 SCC 292) — the Department of Industries having accepted the taxpayer as eligible, it could not reject the same by virtue of subsequent developments — the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 16-6-2006 in CCT ref No. L-III3/870/2004-1 for assessment year 1992-93, with no order as to costs.

¶1

[3529]

¶2

APHC010355302006

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.17638, 17487, 17869 & 18069 of 2006

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 17638/2006

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/S. RAVI TEJA STONE POLISHING INDUSTRIES, ANANTAPUR, TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, REDDY CHERLA BALAYELLIAH

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE ADDL COMMISSIONER HYD 5 OTHERS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER TAXES, HYDERABAD.

¶15

THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT, KURNOOL.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I, TADIPATRI

¶17

THE GENERAL MANAGER, I.C. DISBURSEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, ANANTAPUR.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KURNOOL.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES, A.P. HYDERABAD.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ or direction, more particularly one in the

¶22

¶23

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.17638 of 2006 & batch

¶24

nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the impugned order dated 16-6-2006 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT ref No. L-III3/870/2004-1 for assessment year 1992-93 APSRTC as without jurisdiction, illegal, unjustified and consequently quash the said impugned proceeding dated 16-6-2006 passed by the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders as the Hon039ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 22116 OF 2006

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs. 34,932/- for assessment year 199293, pursuant to the impugned order dated 16-6-2006 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT ref No. L-III(3)/870/2004-1, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.CKR ASSOCIATES

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.DANTU SRINIVAS( SPL SC FOR CT)

¶31

2.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶32

¶33

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.17638 of 2006 & batch

¶34

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶35

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶36

The petitioner, which was in the business of polishing and selling granite slabs and other stones, had been granted exemption from payment of sales tax to an extent of Rs.6,26,130/-, for a period of five (05) years from 24.07.1991 to 23.07.1996. However, the respondent authorities initiated assessment proceedings and steps for recovery of the amounts demanded, under the assessment proceedings for this period. The respondents took the stand that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit of the said exemption granted, under G.O.Ms.No.498, dated 16.10.1989, in view of the subsequent amendments to the G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 25.04.1991.

¶37

The petitioner had raised the contention that the subsequent amendment of the eligibility criteria would affect the case of the petitioner in view of the final eligibility certificate, which had been given by the 4^th respondent. This issue had come up before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vetstar Agros Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer¹ , wherein the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court, had held that, the tax cannot be demanded, ignoring a duly issued final eligibility certificate.

¶38

A similar issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.² ,

¶39

1 [2001]124STC421(AP)

¶40

2 AIR2005SC3073, (2005)6SCC292

¶41

¶42

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.17638 of 2006 & batch

¶43

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had held that, the Department of Industries having accepted the tax payer in that case, as an industrial unit eligible for finance, could not have rejected the same, by virtue of subsequent developments.

¶44