Disposed¶25

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal v. M/S.Fomfortline Systems [Private] Limited

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025TREVC/8/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TREVC No. 8 of 2009 | State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Comfortline Systems (Private) Limited | Telangana High Court, order dated 07-04-2025 | APGST Act Section 22(1) read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules | revision sought of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal order dated 22-08-2008 in T.A. No. 1101 of 2002 | disposed of on grounds of long efflux of time, amount of money not an issue, question of law purely academic | liberty reserved to petitioner-State to raise ground in some other relevant matter | no order as to costs | miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

What did the court decide?

Tax revision case disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner/State to raise the question of law in some other relevant matter; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, directed to stand closed. ¶25

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Vs M/S.Fomfortline Systems [Private] Limited — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

The question of law raised by the petitioner/State in the present tax revision case — identified only generically in the judgment and not decided; the Court disposed of the case reserving the petitioner's right to raise this ground in some other relevant matter.

¶23

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the long efflux of time, the amount of money not being an issue, and the question agitated being purely academic, the Court found it proper to dispose of the tax revision case at this juncture, reserving the right of the petitioner to raise this ground in some other relevant matter.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Key takeaways

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda; judgment per P. Sam Koshy), by order dated 07-04-2025, disposed of TREVC No. 8 of 2009 preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22(1) of the APGST Act read with Rule 10 of the APGST Rules against M/s. Comfortline Systems (Private) Limited, seeking revision of the order dated 22-08-2008 in T.A. No. 1101 of 2002 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Taking into account the long efflux of time, the amount of money involved not being an issue, and the question of law agitated by the petitioner-State being described as purely academic, the Court disposed of the tax revision case without settling that question, expressly reserving the petitioner's right to raise the ground in some other relevant matter. No order as to costs was made; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE P.SAM KOSHY ANT)

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

TREVC NO: 8 OF 2009

¶7

Tax Revision Case Under Section 22 (1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules U/s. APGST Act to revise the order dated 22-O8-2008 in T.A.No. 1101 of 2002 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the State Representative before STAT O/o 5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Comfortline Systems ( Private ) Limited, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. SWAROOP OORILLA , Special Standing

¶15

Counsel for State Tax

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J. V. RAO

¶17

The Court made the following Order

¶18

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENARSING RAO} NANDIKONDA

¶19

TREVC^{No.8 OF 2009}

¶20

.IUDGMENT^{(Pet Hon'ble SrtJustrce P Sa Koshy)}

¶21

Heard Mr. Swaroop^{Oorilla,learned Special StandingCounsel}

¶22

for the State^{Tax fbr the petitioner. Perusedthe record'}

¶23

Taking into consideration^{the longefflux of time tltat has been} passed, the^{question of tawthathas beenraised by the petitioner/State} in the present^{tax revision case} End^{the amountofmoneyllot being an} issue and the^{questionthat is agitatedbeingpurety acadenic' we think} it proper to^{disposeof the tax revisioncaseat this juncturereserving} the right of^{the petitionerto raise this ground in someolher rclevant}

¶24

matter

¶25