The State filed a revision under Section 22(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act challenging orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court followed the Division Bench judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Vasavi Traders and disposed of the revision accordingly.
No costs awarded to either party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
T.R.C.NO.233 OF 1999
DATED: 18.02.2010
Between:
The State of A.P. represented by the State Representative Before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.
…Petitioner
And
M/s. P.Chandrasekharaiah.
…Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
T.R.C.NO.233 OF 1999
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao,J)
Heard.
2. The State is the petitioner herein. The revision is filed under Section 22(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, inter alia, seeking correctness of the orders, dated 25.11.1998 passed in T.A.No.145 of 1998 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P. Hyderabad.
3. The appeal in question was taken up with a long batch of cases by the Appellate Tribunal and the same was disposed of by a common order. Ultimately, the aspect involved being in regard to the purchase of groundnuts and selling the same to the exporters by the assessees, who are the dealers, on certain terms and conditions, inter se, agreed under the contract. The assessing authorities assessed the purchase of groundnuts as last purchase in their hands in the State. 4. Across the bar, the question that arose in the batch of cases including the present one as well before the
Appellate Tribunal is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. SRI VASAVI TRADERS, GADWAL AND OTHERS[1] has answered the same, one in favour of the assessee and the other in favour of revenue.
5. Following the same and in terms thereof, this revision is also disposed of accordingly. No costs.
________________ B.PRAKASH RAO
__________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J
Date:18.02.2010 Ccm/Kvrm
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
T.R.C.NO.233 OF 1999 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao,J)
DATED: 18.02.2010
[1] 2002(35) APSTJ 189
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the assessment order regarding purchase of groundnuts is maintainable in revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Vasavi Traders, Gadwal and OthersFollowed¶20
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. SRI VASAVI TRADERS, GADWAL AND OTHERS [2002(35) APSTJ 189]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of A.P.
M/s. P.Chandrasekharaiah
B. Prakash Rao
R. Kantha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
