Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/S. Soft Foam Industries (P) Ltd., Hyderabad

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023TREVC/28/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order in four Tax Revision Cases regarding levy under A.P.G.S.T. Act. Court held that base turnover must be decided on the quantum of production, not actual turnover, relying on Supreme Court decisions. Petitioner Department's revision applications rejected; Tribunal orders affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Tax Revision Cases are rejected and the Tribunal's order affirming the assessee's production-based turnover calculation is confirmed. No order as to costs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/S. Soft Foam Industries… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA^ALISHETTY

¶8

T.R.E.V.C.Nos:64, 28. 74 and⁷⁷ ol 2008

¶9

T.R.E.V.C.No.64 of 2008

¶10

Tax revision under Section 22⁽¹⁾ read^{with Rule 10 of APGSTRules U/s} A.P.G.S.T. Act, aggrieved by order dated^{26-11-2007 in T.A.No.276 of 2006 on the} file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra^{Pradesh, Hyderabad, against the} order dated 19-O2-2OO4 made in Appeal^{Nos.A,/190/03-04,A/191/03-04'N 192103-} 04, A/193/03-04 on the file of the^{Deputy Commissioner(CT) Secunderabad Division} preferred against the order dated 31-03-03 made in Assessment^No.3234/01- O2IAPGST on the file of the Commercial Tax^{Officer, BasheerbaghCircle,} Hyderabad.

¶11

Between:

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the State^{Representativebefore STAT} D.No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra^{Pradesh, Hyderabad.}

¶13

...Petitioner

¶14

AND

¶15

Mis. Soft Foam lndustries [P] Ltd,^{Hyderabad C/o.G.Nagendra Chetty,Advocate} R/o.H.No.16-2-836/78,^{Madhava Nagar, Hyderabad- 500 659.}

¶16

...Respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.^{RA"rl REDDY}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. NARENDRA^CHETTY

¶19

a trZ

¶20

T.R.E.V.C.No.28 of 2008

¶21

Tax revision under Section 22 (1) rcad wil.h Rule 10 of ApGST Rules U/s A.P.G.S.T. Act, aggrieved by order dated 26-1 1-2007 in T.A.No.275 of 2006 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhrzr Pradesh, Hyderabad, against the order dated 19-02-2004 made in Appeal Nos.Ar190/03-04, N191103-04, N1g2lo304, N193|O3-O4 on the file of the Deputy Commit;sioner (CT) Secunderabad Division preferred against the order dated 28-03-02 rnade in Assessment No.3234/0001/APGST on the file of the Commercial^'Iax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad.

¶22

Between:

¶23

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

¶24

...Petitioner

¶25

AND

¶26

\41. 9glt^{Foam lndusJries [P] Ltd, HyderabadC/o.G.Nagendra Chetty, Advocate} Rr/o. H. No.^{'16-2-836/78,} Madhava Nagar, Hydr:rabad - S00 659.

¶27

...Respondent

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RAJI REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. NAREND,RA CHETTY

¶30

T.R.E.V.C.No.74 of 2008

¶31

Tax revision under Section 22 (1) read vrrith Rule 10 of ApGST Rules U/s A.P.G.S.T. Act, aggrieved by order dated 26-1 1-2007 in T.A.No.546 of 2007 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, against the order dated 19-02-2004 made in Appeal Nos.tVl90/03-04, N1g1lO3-04, N192lO304, N193|O3-O4 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division preferred against the order dated 31-03-03 nlade in Assessment No.3234/01-02 (CST) on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad. Between:

¶32

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

¶33

...Petitioner

¶34

AND

¶35

M/s. Soft Foam^{lndustries(P) Limited,4, First Floor, Topaz on Amrutha Hills,} Punjagutta,^HYderabad.

¶36

...Respondent

¶37

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRIK. RA"rl REDDY,SC FORlT DEPARTMENT} Counsel for the^{Respondent:SRIG. NARENDRACHETTY}

¶38

T.R.E. V.C.No.77^{of 2008}

¶39

Tax revision under^{Section22 (1\ read with Rule1} 0^{of APGSTRules U/s} A.P.G.S.T. Act, aggrieved^{by order dated 26-1 1-2007in T.A.No.S19of 2005 on the} file of the Sales^{Tax Appellate Tribunal,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, againstthe} order dated 19-02-2004^{made in Appeal Nos.A'l190/03-04,N191lO3-04, N192103'} 04, N193|O3-O4^{on the file of the DeputyCommissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division} preferred against the order dated^{26-04-01 madein AssessmentNo.2470198-99} (APGST) on the file^{of the Commercial TaxOfficer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad.} Between:

¶40

The State of^{AndhraPradesh,Repby the State Representativebefore STAT} D.No.5-4-404^{to 408, Nampally, AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad.}

¶41

...Petitioner

¶42

AND

¶43

M/s. Soft Foam^{lndustries(P) Limited,4, First Floor, Topaz on Amrutha Hills,} Punjagutta,^HYderabad.

¶44

...Respondent

¶45

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRIK. RAJI REDDY, SC FORlT DEPARTMENT}

¶46

Counsel^{forthe Respondent:SRI G. NARENDRA CHETTY}

¶47

The Court made^{the following:COMMON OROER}

¶48

W i.

¶49

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

¶50

AND

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NIIRAYANA ALISHETTY

¶52

T.R.E.V.C.Nos.64 2a 74and77 of2OO8

¶53

COMMON ORDER:^(perI lott'bk, Srt Jttslice P.SAM KOSIJY)

¶54

Heard Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes representing the State and Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel apperring for the respondent and perused the record.

¶55

The instant Tax Revision Cases have been filed assailing the order d.ated )(>.11.2OO7 in T.A.Nos.lit^g /OS, 275/ 06, 226 / 06 and 546107 passed by the learned Saler; Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, I{yderabad (for short "lhe Tribunal").

¶56

Vide the impugr.red order cated 26.11.2OO7, the learned Tribunal had allou.ed the appeals preferred by the respondent - M/s Soft Foam Industries, (P) Ltd, Hyderabad. The question of lau, raised u,as u.hether the base turnover has to be on the quantum of production or the turnover of the company thereof.

¶57

Today, u,hen the matter is takerr up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the parties has lrrouglt before this Court a Judgment of the^{Hon'ble Supreme} Oourt rendered in case of

¶58

¶59

PSK,J & LNA,J TREVC Nos 64.28. 7a ind 77 ol 2m8

¶60

!--F-tv " "!.EYi .-

¶61

Assistant Commr.(Ct) Lfit And Anr vs. Amara Raja Batteries Ltdt. It has also been informed that along with the said SLP, a batch of SLPs preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in the case of Orlent Cemen| Deuapur' Adilabad

¶62

District and others as. State of Andhra Pro,desh and others which was decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 29.11.2005 were also tagged up and decided.^{The Hon'ble} Supreme Court has affirmed the order of^the Hon'ble^{High Court} of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Orient Cement,^Deaapu1 Adilabad District and others as. State of Andhra Pradesh and otlters, deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and it has been categorically held that the term base turnover^{has to} be decided on the quantum of production arrd not on^the turnover thereof.

¶63

In view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid the issue raised in the SLP in case of Arnara . RaJd Batterles (SupraT) and other connected SLPs, the instant Tax Revision Cases also stands decided in similar terms.

¶64

r sLp(c) r'ro.tazgslzooo

¶65

PS}'.I& LNA.J TItEVC Nos.64.2lt. 74 and l7 o12008

¶66

{ 7
./

¶67