Dismissed

The State of Ap, Rep.by State Representative Before Stat v. M/S Rubber [India]Products, Panjeshah, Hyderabad.

Telangana HC21 Aug 2025TREVC/19/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State's tax revision challenging the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's classification of rubber nipples as general goods rather than rubber products. The High Court followed its own earlier decision in four identical tax revision cases for other assessment years involving the same assessee and rejected the revision, confirming the Tribunal's order.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Ap, Rep.by State Representative Before… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶8

TAX REVISION CASE No: 19 OF 2009

¶9

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) R/w Rule 10 of APGST Rules U/s APGST Act to revise the order dated 17-05-2008 in T.A.No.8B4 of 2001 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by the State Representative before STAT D.No.54-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

M/s Rubber India] Products, 18-9-29117, Chandrayangutta Panjeshah, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, Assistantpovernment Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special Governmeot Pleader for Tax

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A.K. Jaiswal

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

I I

¶20

I I

¶21

THF] IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHT' AND

¶22

THE HONoTIRABLE SR] JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶23

'l AX REVISION CASE No.l9 of 2009t

¶24

ORDER:^(per llon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

¶25

I{eard Sri T.Chaitanya Kiran, leamed Assistanl Govcrnment

¶26

Pleader represerrting Sri Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Spccial Government

¶27

Pleader fbr State Tax, for the petitioner and

¶28

Sri A.K.Jaiswal. Ieamed counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶29

I'his^'fax Revision Case preferred by the petitione r- State Lrnder Section 22( I ) rerrd with Rule l0 ol the Andhra Pradesh Gcneral Sales Tax Rules under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. 1957.^.l'he challcnge is to the order dated 17.05.2008, passed by thc Salcs Iax Appellate^'lribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short,lhe^'STA1') in.l'ribunal Appeal No.884 of 2001.

¶30

The issue involved in the instant Tax Revision Case was thc product/nipple made of rubber sale by the respondent has to be lrt:aled as a general good or has to be treated as rubber product as has been claimed by the Revenue.

¶31

ln respect of the very same Assessee, for the other assessment years there were batch of lour other Tax Revision Cases pref'crred by the State challenging the similar order passed by the S-fA f i.e.'fax

¶32

I t

¶33

¶34

Revision Case Nos.7, 20, 2l and 24 of 2009 u'hich stood decided on 19.02.2025 by this Bcnch. This Court alter considering all the^judicial prccedents on the issuc involved confirmcd thc ordcr ol'SfA-l' and dismissed the Tax Revision Cases prelened b1, thc Statc.^-['he lactual matrix of the issue involved in the present^'fax Revision Cases is identical in nature and in respect of the very sarne Asscsscc lor thc subsequent period ol assessment.

¶35

In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the issue involvcd in thc instant case stands squarclf ans*crcd bv this Court in the afbrementioned lour Tax Revision Cascs decided on 19.02.2025. the instant case also. therefcrre. deserves to be and is. accordingly, rejected confirming the order passed by S'l'A'l-, dated t 7.05.2008.^'lhere shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Consequently, misccllaneous pctitions pending. if' any. shall

¶37

stand closed

¶38

Sd/- K.SHYLESI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER