Dismissed¶19

M/S.U.P.State Bridge Corporation Limited v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Telangana HC16 Oct 2025TREVC/208/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 24A APGST Act three-year limitation; Regulation 21 service of Tribunal order; State Representative versus Assessing Authority/CTO as trigger of limitation; tribunal dispatch records registered-post service 13.03.1995; STAT remand order 17.02.1995 in T.A.Nos.51 of 1994 and batch; CTO re-assessment 12.03.1998; ADC dismissal 13.03.2001; works contract tax on 70% of receipts; Rule 6(2) book-based exemptions; labour component 30%; G.O.Ms.No.172 rate point; T.A.Nos.1448/1449 of 2001; U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited; Telangana High Court Tax Revision dismissed 16-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; both Tax Revision Cases dismissed, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶19

M/S.U.P.State Bridge Corporation Limited Vs the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both Tax Revision Cases dismissed, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer is beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 24A of the APGST Act, since the STAT's remanding orders were served on the State Representative on 25-02-1995. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Under Regulation 21 the Tribunal's order must be served on the authority against whose order the appeal was preferred; here the appeal was preferred against the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and not the assessing authority, and the tribunal dispatch records prove the remand order was directly served on the CTO vide registered post on 13.03.1995, which is proper service per Regulation 21 of the APGST Act.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that once the order is served on the State Representative the three-year limitation is to be calculated from that date (and not from the date of service on the assessing/revisionary authority) cannot be accepted.

¶17

Key takeaways

This court holds that only service effected on the revisionary authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, is to be treated as the proper service, and it alone triggers the limitation.ratio¶17
Consequently, the revised assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on 12.03.1998 is well within time and is not barred by limitation under Section 24A.ratio¶17
Both the substantial questions of law framed in these Tax Revision Cases are answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (common order per Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) dismisses Tax Revision Cases Nos. 207 and 208 of 2008 filed by M/s. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited under Section 22(1) of the APGST Act, 1957, challenging the STAT's common order dated 17.05.2008 in T.A.Nos.1448 and 1449 of 2001. Holdings: (i) per Regulation 21, the Tribunal's order must be served on the authority against whose order the appeal was preferred — here the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, not the assessing authority — and the Tribunal's dispatch records prove direct registered-post service of the 17.02.1995 remand order on the Commercial Tax Officer on 13.03.1995, which is proper service; (ii) service of the order on the State Representative does not start the three-year clock under Section 24A — only service effected on the revisionary authority (the Deputy Commissioner) is proper service and triggers limitation; (iii) consequently the re-assessment order dated 12.03.1998 was well within time. Both substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the respondent; both revisions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

13447 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 207 and 208 OF 2008

¶7

TAX REVISION CASE NO: 207 OF 2008

¶8

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules under Section Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the order dated 17.05.2008 passed in Tribunal Appeal No. 1448 ol 2001 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/S. U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LIMITED, Represented by its Assistant Accounts Officer Mr. R.K. Pal Under Prabodhankar Thankare Flyover, Opp Mahada Office, Kalanagar, Bandra (E),

...PETITIONER

AND

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its State Representative Before Sales Tax Appellate tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREODY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR STATE TAX

¶18

¶19

TAX REVISION CASE NO : 208 0F 2008

¶20

Tax Revision case under section 22(1) Read with Rule 10 cf ApGST Rules under section Andhra Pradesh General sales Tax Act, 1957 to r: /ise the order dated 17.05.2008 passed in Tribunal Appeal No. 1449 of 2001 on thr file of the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra^pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶21

Between:

¶22

M/S.U.P.STATE BRTDGE CORPORAION LIM|TED, I tnder prabodhankar Thakare - -Flyover rep by its Asst. AccounG' Officer H,frn.f.Cii O/o.Opp.Mahada Office, Kalinagar, Bandra tEl, MJmba 4O0O5.l

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

TRTBUNAL' rep bv its st;r e Representative ;:}5,.:tii?H,ryJ"'^i?l=

¶26

...RESPONDENT

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. KARTHIK RAMANA put IAMREDDY

¶28

counsel for the Respondent: : sRr swARoop ooRrLLA t pEcrAL Govr. PLEADER FOR STATE TA)(

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

il l

{

il , llr

1r :, .l

L J c P AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NA N RAO NA NDIKONDA

¶36

T REVISIO c SEN s.20 7A ND 208of 2008

¶37

COMMON ORDER: (per the Honbte Sri lustice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

¶38

Heard Mr. Karthik Ramana puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. swaroop oorila, Iearned Speciar Government preader for State Tax for the respondent.

¶39

Since the issue involved and the petitioner / assessee in these two Tax Revision Cases being one and the same, they being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

¶40

These two Tax Revision Case are filed by the petitioner under Section 22 (r) ot the Andhra pradesh Generar sares Tax Act, tg57 (for short, the 'AGPST Act,) challenging the common order dated L7.OS.2OOB, in T.A.Nos.1448 and 7449 of 2001, passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the ,STAf).

¶41

The facts of- the case are that, the petitioner is a Government undertaking of the State of Uttar pradesh. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of A,GST Act and centrar sares Tax Act, 1956 respectively' The petitioner's assessment for the years 1g86-87 and

¶42

¶43

1987-1988 was completed by the Assessing Authorit,r by its order dated 26.02.1991 and 23.08.1992 respectivery revying tax < n 70yo of receipts as .taxable instead of arriving at actual value of gr rds transferred in execution of works contract and the exemptions undr: Rule 6 (2) based on books have been overrooked. chalrenging the said. der, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Cc nmissioner (CT), Hyderabad and the same were dismissed by order r ated 29.10.1993. However, when the petitioner challenged the orde r ; passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner before the STAT, the STAT by its order dated 17.02.1995, in T.A.Nos.51 of tgg4 and batch, rad set aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and remar led the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh consideration ai er providing due opportunity to the petitioner. But the Commercial Tax Officer has once again confirmed the levy vide order dated 12.03.199i1 The Commercial Tax Officer has, however, given exemption in respect of cement, steel supply and cost recovery basis to the petitioner and i- :orporated in the works in respect of 1986-87 only. Further, the levy o1 :ax is on 7oo/o of receipts instead of giving deduction at actual towards ; bour and levying tax on balance turnover of the goods.

¶44

¶45

5' It was contended by the petitioner that he courd rot participate in the assessment as its staff were scattered at different : aces and sought time to furnish necessary details as per the direction o STAT. It is also

¶46

¶47

contended that the Commercial Tax Officer^passed an order on^{the ground} that limitation was going to expire by 13.03.1998. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate^Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated^13.03.2001 rejecting the contentions of the^petitioner that the order^{passedby the} Commercial Tax Officer was time barred and also in^violation of^the principles of natural justice. Challenging the same, the^petitioner again preferred an appeal before the STAT on the^ground that the revised assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer^{is barred by time under} Section 24A of the APGST Act and also on^{the ground that the petitioner} was not provided sufficient opportunity before^passing the^assessment order. But, the learned STAT, however,^{rejected the appealon boththe} grounds by its order dated 17.05.2008

¶48

Learned counsel for the^petitioner contended^{that since the orders} of the STAT in earlier round of appeals. were^{served on the State} Representative on 25.06.1995, the Commercial^{Tax Officerought to have} passed the consequential orders in terms of Section 24A of the APGST^Act within three^years from the date of^service of^{order on the State} Representative i.e., before 25.06.1998. It^{wasalso contendedthat the} orders^passed by the assessing^{authority dated12.03.1998are clearly} time barred. It was also contended that the^{noticeof the STAT in its} earlier order squarely covers the issue^{of the petitioner and requestedto}

¶49

¶50

¶51

set aside^{the orderspassedby the AppellateDepL t /Commissioner'} However,^{the STAT rejectedthe contentionsof the r:titioner by duly} accepting^{the contention of the State Representative'}

¶52

It is further^{contended by the learned counsel for he petitioner that} since the^{order of STAT was served onthe Asse:r:ing AuthoritYon} Commercitr^{Tax Officeron} 13.03.1995,^{the order Passed bY the} ltative cannot^be 12.03.1998^{is withinlimitation and the StateRepres€} rrain^g rievance^of considered^{as service on the AssessingAuthority'Th€} -' ial Tax^{Officer for} the^{petitioner is that the proceedingsof the Comme} ; Act, wherein^the the^{year1986-1987and 1987-88 are under the APGIi} to works^contract Assessing^{Authority has determinedturnover relatint;} by time^{since the} and the^{order of the CommercialTax Officer is barrer} petitioner understands^{that it is passed behind the p':} iod of^{Three Years} under^{Section 24A of the Act'}

¶53

rl for the Petitioner 8. It was^{also the contentionof the learned coun:;} that the^{CommercialTax Officer has passed the ord':} s nearlY^two Years rortunity^{was given} after the^{issuance of the show cause noticeand no o:} is^{given insteadof} to the^{petitioner and that if one more opportunity} on the Pretext^that making^{the petitionerunaware by passing the orde-} I not rePresent^the limitation^{is expiring, the petitioner bona fidely cotl}

---:=::^-a:=-':='

matter as several employees had left and he did not have^proper track of pending matters.

¶58

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the^petitioner that the Commercial Tax Officer has taken the additional turnover as works contract receipts without giving exemption like consumable, second sales etc. That the Commercial Tax Officer ought to have adopted the labour component based on the books of accounts of^petitioner instead of^3Oo/o as per the^provisions of the APGST Act or the Rules since the^petitioner incurred labour charges more than 30olo. The Commercial Tax Officer has Ievied uniform rate at rate of 5olo without identifying the^goods and reference to Section 64 has no bearing since the Commercial Tax Officer assessed the receipts under works contract after deducting labour and supplies of road and buildings department. In any event, the rate of tax should be 4o/o and not 57o by virtue of the G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 13.19.1986. In any case, the Commercial. Tax Officer is incorrect in levying the additional tax at 1%io for the entire^year, which only can be leviable for 01.08.1996 up to 31.7.1996 @ 5%.

¶59

¶60

As the assessment was originally^passed on 26.02.1991, the petitioner approached the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who in turn dismissed the appeals and when the^petitioner has^preferred the appeals before the STAT, who remanded back the matter to the Assessing

¶61

¶62

Authority for fresh consideration. In spite of the direr: ions given by the STAT, neither appeared in-person before the Assess ng Authority nor responded for the same and he failed to produce the documentary evidence in support of its contentions and the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity given to it. Therefore, it was not ( esirable that the petitioner should not be encouraged by offering anotheopportun ity, even on merits, the turnover pertains to the transfer of pr: rerty of goods in execution of works contract. Hence, in the absence of dc :ument evidence, the contention of the petitioner was rejected by the qppellate Deputy Com m issio ne r.

¶63

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner rr ntended that by order dated 77.O2.1.995; the matter was remanded bacl. to the Assessing Authority for a fresh re-assessment to be done for the t. < period 1986-87 and 1987-88. The STATT order was served on the st_, .e representative before the Tribunal on 25.02.1995 which amounts t( service on the assessing authority itself. As per language of Section ,. -A of the APGST Act, the re-assessment order is to be passed within thre l years from the date of the service of the Tribunal order which is within 5.02.1998. The said revised orders are passed on 12.03.1995 wh< r is barred by limitation.

L2. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax is that the STAT dispatch records prove that the remand order was directly served on the Commercial Tax Officer via registered post on 13.03.1995, not through the state representative. It is further contended that regulation 21 does not apply as the Assessing Authority (CTO) was not the authority against whose order the appeal was preferred, hence the service on CTO was mandate, and the state representative's role was not a conduit for communication in this case. It is further contended that Section 24-A does not specify whose receipt triggers limitation. The Tribunals dispatch register confirms service on the CTO on 13.03.1995 and contended that the service on the CTO is the starting point of limitation and the order was passed on 12.03.1998 which is within time.

¶68

The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax also was that as per the regulation 21, the STAT is not bound to communicate the order on the assessing authority. In the petitionert case since the assessing authority is neither "the^party" nor the^"state representative" nor the authority against whose order the appeal was preferred nor the deputy commissioner nor the board of revenue, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner appeal before the tribunal was against the order passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner, therefore, the authority against whose order the appeal was^preferred was the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, not the assessing authority and

¶69

¶70

the above mentioned rule and regulations show as to t ow comprehensive and sufficient the service to state representative is.

¶71

It was further contended that the duty of the St rte Representative is to communicate with the revisionary or assessing arr horities as he may deem fit. Once the order is served on the state repres lntative, the three year limitatlon is to be calculated from the said date lr rt and the date on which it may be served to the assessing revisionary aut r o rities.

¶72

Basing on the above submissions of both the cct nsel and g rounds, the following substantial question of law that arise for : )nsideration in the instant Tax Revision Cases, viz.,

¶73

a) Whether the order passed by the Commercial Ttr; Offlcer is beyond limitation as prescribed under section 24A of tt,t APGST Act since the STAT remanding matter were serverj on the State Representative on 25-02-1995? And

¶74

b) Since the State Representative is rbpresentin ; the State, the service of order on him should be considered as late of service for the purpose of Section 24A and consequently r hether the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on 13.03.1 )98 must be held to be barred by limitation as the due date fc - passing the re assessment order is 25.02.1998 which is three ye :rs from the date of service on State Representative ?

¶75

¶76

¶77

On perusal of the Regulation 21, it clearly shows that the order has to be served on the authority against whose order the appeal was preferred. In the present case, admittedly the appeal was preferred against the Appellate Deputy Commissioner but not the assessing authority. Appeal was preferred against the orders of Deputy commissioner and as per the tribunal dispatch records prove the remand order was directly served on the CTO vide registered post on 13.03.1995 which is proper as per the regulation 21 of the APGST ACT

¶78

In view of the above regulation the contention of the petitioner that the rules and regulations show as to how comprehensive and sufficient the service to state representative is. It is the duty of the state representative to communicate with the revisionary or assessing authority as the case may be. Once the order is served on the state representative, the three year limitation is to be calculated from the said date but not the date on which it may be served to the assessing authority / revisionery authority cannot be accepted. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the service which is effected only on the revisionary authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner only has to be treated as the proper service and which only triggers the limitation, Therefore, the revised assessment order passed on 12.03.1998 is well within time.

¶79

¶80

¶81

For the said reasons stated above, this Bencr hold that the substantial questions of law framed are answered i: favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

¶82

Consequently, both the Tax Revision Petitions are iable to be and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶83

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall alsrr stand closed.

¶84

SD/- 1( SRINIVASA RAO J(^rlNT REGISTRAR

¶85

A
//TRUE COPY//
\ srqTroN oFFrcER

¶86

¶87

To,

¶88

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderrr rad. (With records)

¶89

Two CCs to the Special Public Prosecutor, State of Telanga ra, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶90

One CC to SRl. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Ad" ,cate [OPUC] ,ucl

¶91

One CC to Special Govt Pleader for State Tax Advocate [{) 5 Two CD Copies

TPK/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1611012025

R it SI4
<br>:'', )
l! .,
l. rAl 2iir
t
':._+
*
,

¶99

ORDER

¶100

TREVC.Nos.2O7 and 208 of 2008

¶101

TAX REVISION CASES ARE DtSMtSSt:D

¶102

.6 dtrcb
&e

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 17.05.2008 in T.A.Nos.1448 and 1449 of 2001, whereby the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the petitioner's appeals on both grounds (time-bar under Section 24A and alleged denial of sufficient opportunity), upholding the Commercial Tax Officer's revised assessment orders.¶3
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad · 17.05.2008
Prior proceeding
Original assessments for 1986-87 and 1987-88 completed by the Assessing Authority by orders dated 26.02.1991 and 23.08.1992, taxing 70% of receipts as taxable instead of the actual value of goods transferred in execution of works contract; exemptions under Rule 6(2) based on books were overlooked.¶4
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad against the original assessments were dismissed by order dated 29.10.1993.¶4
Prior proceeding
On further appeal, the STAT by order dated 17.02.1995 in T.A.Nos.51 of 1994 and batch set aside the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration after providing due opportunity to the petitioner.¶4
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to remand, the Commercial Tax Officer once again confirmed the levy by revised assessment orders dated 12.03.1998 (printed once as '12.03.199i1'), giving exemption for cement, steel supply and cost recovery only for 1986-87, and continuing to levy on 70% of receipts instead of deduction of labour at actuals.¶4
Prior proceeding
Second-round appeal: the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 13.03.2001, rejecting the contentions that the Commercial Tax Officer's order was time-barred and in violation of natural justice.¶5
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's subsequent appeal before the STAT (against time-bar under Section 24A and insufficiency of opportunity) was rejected on both grounds by the order dated 17.05.2008 now impugned.¶5
Prior proceeding
As recounted in the order, after the STAT's directions the petitioner neither appeared in person before the Assessing Authority nor responded, and failed to produce documentary evidence; on that basis its contentions were rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.¶10
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's computation of the limitation due-date: re-assessment order was to be passed within three years from service of the Tribunal's order, i.e., by 25.02.1998, rendering the revised orders (12.03.1998) time-barred.¶11
Prior proceeding
Contested service facts: petitioner asserted service of the STAT's remand order on the State Representative (25.06.1995 per para 6 of the order; 25.02.1995 urged later), whereas the State relied on the Tribunal's dispatch records showing direct registered-post service on the Commercial Tax Officer on 13.03.1995.¶12

M/S.U.P.State Bridge Corporation Limited v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.U.P.State Bridge Corporation Limited v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Madhusudan Vs The Union of India and 10 Others

M.A. Shareef, S/o. Rahamathulla Shareef Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sol Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs the State of Ap

Vijay Gopal Vs Sri S. Goverdhan Reddy

M/S Raasi Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Vs State of Ap, Rep.by State Representative Before Stat, Hyd.

M/S. Raasi Cements Ltd., Hyd. Vs State Rep. Before Stat, Hyd.