Dismissed

M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Telangana HC11 Oct 2023TRC/35/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana rejected a tax revision petition filed by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. challenging the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's affirmation of tax liability. The Court held that no substantial question of law was made out regarding the admission of facts concerning missing E-1 forms and defective C-forms necessary for tax exemption.

What did the court decide?

Tax Revision Case rejected; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs the Sales Tax… — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2023)

l.''

[³³⁸⁶ ]

I I

l i i I I I II I I I I Ii I

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY ANO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶9

TAX REVISION CASE No: 35 of 2005

¶10

Tax revision under Section 22 (1) (See Rule 40) Under APGST Act aggrieved by order dated 04-08-2004 in T.A.No.464 of^'1998 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, against the order dated 11-02-1998 made in Appeal No.46Bi96-97 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad preferred against the order dated 16-08-1 996 Assessment No. 12032193-94(CST) on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Sangareddy.

¶11

Between:

¶12

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad - 500032 by its Deputy Finance Manager, Sri T-Mohanarao.

¶13

...Petitioner

¶14

AND

¶15

The State ofAndhra Pradesh represented by the State Representative before the S.T.A.Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶16

...Respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. NARENDRA CHETTY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S. SURIBABU (SPL SC FOR CT AP)

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TAX REVISION CASE No.35 of 2OO5

¶23

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justtce P.SAM KOSHY)

¶24

The instant Tax Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Sa-les Tru Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in T.A.No.464 of 1998 dated 04.O8.2OO4. Vide the said impugned order, the Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, in Apped No.468/96-97 decided on 1 1.O2. I 998.

¶25

Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, iearned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Standing Counsel for^(lommercial Taxes appearing lor the respondent.

¶26

The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a Government of India public sector undertaking engaged ln designing, manufacturing, supplying and installing power plant equipments. The petitioner has a manufacturing unit at Hyderabad which was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the APGST Act, 1957, and also under the Central

¶27

¶28

Sales Ta-x Act, i956. For^{the assessmentyear 1993-1994,Lhe} Commercial Tax Officer, Sangareddy, had^passed an order^on 16.08.1996 fastening a tax liability on a turnover of Rs. 19,54,20,506/- and rate of tax on a turnover of Rs.15,49,89,571/-. The order of the Commerciai Tax Officer was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Dy Commissioner(CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, who ir-r tum dismissed the appeal on 11.02.1998. The rejection of the appeal which was further subjected to challenge by way of an appeal before the Tribunai vide T.A.No.464 of 1998.

¶29

The Tribunal vide the impugned order dated O4.08.2OO4, had partly allowed and partly dismissed and to the extent the appeal was allowed, the matter stood remanded back. The appeal in the instant case has been confined to the extent of the transit sales made by the petitioner's establishment and to which the authorities concerned have imposed tax as the petitioner has not supported the sa-id transit sales by 'E1'forms which is mandatorily required for getting an exemption from payment of tax. Simiiarly, the 'C' declaration forms filed by the petitioner were also found to be defective.

¶30

¶31

In the light of the specific finding of fact given by the Commercia,l Tax Officer at the first instance and which was affirmed by the Appellate Dy.Commissioner(CT) subsequently, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the admitted fact on the part of the petitioner themselves that n<:ither before the Comrnercial Tax Officer nor before the Appellate Dy.Commissioner did the petitioner submit the 'E1' forms claiming for exemption. Thus, the forms for the first time were submitted before the Tribunal. So far as 'E1'forms submitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal took note of the same and gave a finding of fact as is reflected in paragraph Nos.l1 and 12 of the impugned order, which for ready reference is being reproduced herein under:

¶32

'll. Against the disputed turnover of Rs.2,46,O9,186/pertaining to transit sales, the appellant has Iiled the following E- 1' forms, during the course of hearing, for the invoice mentioned below.

¶33

Sl.No	E-1 No. Form	Date	Supplier Name I	InvoiceNo.& Date I	^AmountRs.
1	(al73O7a (b) 14s619s	06.12.94 31.03.94	Powergear Pvt.Ltd. NewFire Engineers Pvt.Ltd.	IDHY2338040 31.03.94	16,60,000
2	496392	31.01.94	Triveni Plenty Engg.Ltd	MSHY1833012 01.r2. 1993	I,73,28,O87
03.	497a3 49744 I	12.11.98 t2.11.9A	Baby lndustries Baby Induties l	MSHY1837762 31.03.1994	46,69,245 2,36 57 332

¶34

¶35

¶36

As seen from the assessment order of the Commercial Tax OIIicer in G.7.No.12032I93-94(CST) dt.16.8.1996, at page 4 and7, the total turnover relating to second inter-state sales where the appella-nt is required to file E-1 forms, amounted to Rs.4,16,32,810/-. Out of this, sales to Government parties were to a tune of Rs.3,2 1,55,565/- and to private parlies to the extent of Rs.94,77,245/-. But ttre five E-1 forms liled now by the appellant covering an amount of Rs.2,36,57,332-00 relates to private parties only as against Rs.94,77 ,245 / - merrtioned in the assessment order. From this it is clear that the appellant is not able to correlate and submit the exact El forms for the relevant turnover but is trying to cover the disputed turnover by producing some E1 forms or above which arenot relevant as could be seen from the fact above that ile has produced E1 forms from private parLies over and above tlie turnover mentioned in the assessment order of the Commercia,l Tax Oflrcer at page 4 . Further the E I forms filed should be supported by documents like L.R./R.R. containing the date and endorsement which should tally with such particulars mentioned in the E 1 forms a:rd the linking 'C' forms. Admittedly the appellant is not eligible for exemption as he has not fulfilled the specific conditions laid dorvn undel section 6(2) of CST Act to qualify for exemption."

¶37

1S 6. So far the disputed turnover of Rs.53,24 ,49O / - concemed, the Tribunal found the Appellate Dy. Commissioner itself having dealt with it elaborately which has been further deliberated and reflected in paragraph No.13 of the impugned order which again for ready reference is being reproduced herein under:

¶38

"13.Regarding the disputed turnover of Rs.53,29,49O/-, the learned counsel for the appellant-company has filed list of six (6) 'C' forms on the ground that these a:.e defective. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant submitted that it had requested its customers to rectify tJ:e defects and forward the rectified 'C'forms to the appellant. As he has not received the same inspite of repeated requests, the non-frling of rectified 'C'forms is neither willful nor intentional. At this stage, it is apt to mention and extract the observaLions of the Appellant

i i

Dy.Commissioner (CT) in his appeal order No.4tr8/96-97, dated I 1-2- 1998, which reads as under:

¶43

'Rs.53,29,490-00; This turnover, according to the appellant, relatable to inter-state sales for which the appellant filed 'C'forms before the assessing authority and which were disallowed byhim, on the plea that the sarne were defective. The Authorised Representative stated that the appellant requested his customers to rectifu the mistakes and forward the rectified 'C'forms to him, and that the appellantcompary did not receive the 'C' forms so far. Thus, he expressed his inability to produce the rectified 'C' forms before me. Hence, I dismiss the appeal on this score as no rectified 'C' forms are produced before me."

¶44

In view of the a-foresaid specific concurrent finding of fact by all authorities below and the Tribunal as well, vve do not find any substantial question of law made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned order.

¶45

The Tax Revision Case thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. No order i1s to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending il'any, shall

stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

\ SECTION OFFICER

I I I I !

To,

1 The Sales Tax Appellate^{Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,} 2 The Deputy Commissioner^{(CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad'} J The Commercial^{Tax Officer, Sangareddy} 4 One CC to SRI^{G. NARENDRACHETTY,Advocate[OPUC]} 5 One CCto SRI^{S. SURIBABU (SPL SC FORCTAP)[OPUCI}

¶54

b Two CD Copies kam

i i I i I

: i I I I I I I I I I

I II I iII i II I i

HIGH COURT

PSK, J &

LNA, J

DATED:1111012023

ORDER

TRC.No.35 of 2005

5 rE
r<br>?t'8 6)
g uEc
2 +t-
f,cr)
,.^
I o t: !i

¶67

THE TAX REVISION CASE IS REJECTED

¶68

M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

Sri Hari Raju Penmatsa Vs The Commercial Tax Officer And Another

Rangu Suma and 3 Others Vs Jangam Mariyamma and 2 Others

The a.P.S.R.T.C., Vs P. Rajamani

P Murray, Secunderabad and 3 Others Vs M Mallesha, Hyderabad and 2 Others

A.Narsinga Rao Vs Assistant Commissioner of Incoeme Tax

M/s. a. Narotham Reddy Vs Joint Commissioner (St)