Dismissed

M/S.Ncl Industries Limited v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Telangana HC8 Apr 2025TREVC/211/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tax revision by an assessee against Tribunal order upholding sales tax levy on iron ore purchased outside the State and on diesel supplied to transporters for hauling limestone from quarry to factory. The court found concurrent findings of fact that fuel cost was recovered from transporters, so no manufacturing-process concession applied.

What did the court decide?

None; tax revision case rejected, no costs, miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S.Ncl Industries Limited Vs the Sales Tax Appellate… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

TREVC NO: 211 OF 2008

¶7

(Petition under Section 22(1) of APGST Act, 1957 to revise the Order dt.16-07-2008 passed in TA No.667 of 2001 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s.NCL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, Simhapuri, Nalgonda District. rep by its Vice President [Corporate Affairs] Mr.K.Chandra Sekhar^-

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its State Representative before STAT O/o.Hyderabad.

¶13

..RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. AKRUTI AGARWAL REPRESENTTNG MR. SRI. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL SC. FOR STATE TAX

¶16

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶17

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'SAMKOSHY} AND TIIE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO} NANDIKONDA

¶18

TREVC No.2lto^{F 2008}

¶19

JUDGMENT^{: (per Hon'bleSri Justice P Sam Koshy)}

¶20

Heard Ms'^{AkrutiAgarwal, leamed counselrepresenting} Mr. Karthik^{Ramana Puttamreddy' leamed counsel for the} petitioner^{and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla'leamed SpeciatStanding} Counsel^{for State Tax for the respondent'Perused the record'}

¶21

The insta.nt^{tax revisioncase has been filed by the assessee}

¶22

under Section^{22(1) of the AndhraPradeshGeneralSalesTax'} 1957^(for short^{'the Act')'}

¶23

The challenge^{is to the order passed by the Sales Tax} Appellate^{Tribunal (STAT) in T'A'No'667of 2001 decidedon} t6.07.2008.

¶24

Vide the^{said impugned order' the learned Tribunalhas} dismissed^{the appeal preferredby the assessee affirmingthe order} passed by^{the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)dated} 26.02.2001.

¶25

¶26

The leamed counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,

¶27

contended that there are two issues which they have primarily raised in the instant tax revision case. Those are as regards the purchase of iron ore from outside the State and whether the said interstate purchase would attract tax under the Act and the second issue was that the use of HSD oil (diesel) purchased by the petitioner at a concessional rate for the transportation of the raw material would attract tax or not.

¶28

So far as the first point of purchase of iron ore is concerned, the very first paragraph of the order of the leamed STAT itself would go to show that the petitioner themselves in the course of their arguments had given up their challenge so far as the levy of tax on the purchase of iron ore is concerned. For ready reference, paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder:

¶29

"There are two points on which the appellant has made his submissions before us. On the point of iron ore purchased from other states, the appellant has conceded that even now they did not have the necessary 'C' forms to claim a lower rate of tax. Hence, they did not^press the point".

¶30

¶31

-w
,'{

¶32

As regards the second issue so far as purchase and use of HSD oil (diesel) by the petitioner is concemed, the contention raised by the petitioner was that they have not travelled beyond the scope of G.O.Ms.No.625 dated 31.07.1996 so fm as the purchase and use of diesel is concemed. According to the petitioner, the diesel that tl.rey had purchased was made use also for the transportation of the raw material i.e., limestone from the quarry to the factory which thus would amount to use of diesel i.e., HSD oil in the manuf-acturing process and thus it was well within the ambit of G.O.Ms.Nct.625 and as such the department ought not to have imposed tax on the said quantity of fuel used for the transportation of the raw material from the quarry to the factory. I{owever, perusal of the records, more particularly the findings given by the Commercial l-ax Officer at the first instance in his order dated 31.03.2000, there is a categorical finding of fact that upon verification of'the relevant books of accounts, general ledger, cash book, purchase bills, sale bills etc., it was found that admittedly the petitioner has provided HSD oil (diesel) to the various transporters fcrr transporting raw material from the quarry to the

¶33

¶34

factory. The officers also found that when the bills were prepared

¶35

so far as the payment to transporters is concemed, it was found that the assessee has recovered from the transporters the cost of the fuel provided to the transporters for the supply of raw material. Thus, it can be safely construed that the petitioner had not made use of the fuel for the manufacturing process but it used the said fuel for facilitating the transporters in providing the raw material from the quarry to the factory and the petitioner in turn has also charged the transporters for the said fuel consumed by them and it was for this reason that the authorities had reached to the conclusion that the petitioirer would be liable to be taxed on the diesel that was provided to the transporters by the petitioner for transportation of, raw material.

¶36

We do not find any cogent material made available either before the Commercial Tax Officer or before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and neither before the leamed STAT to show that the petitioner had not charged the transporters for the fuel that was supplied by the petitioner so as to claim the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.625 and also to establish that they are not liable to pay

i : i j I I I

@r'

tax so far as the said^{quantityof fuel providedby the petitioner to}

¶41

the transporte rs is concemed'

¶42

g. Given^,-he concurrent^{findingsof fact by all the authorities}

¶43

and that ther,: are^{no strong materials to hold the finding to be} erroneous, wt: do not^{find any meritsin the tax revision case filed}

¶44

by the petitioner.

¶45

The tax revision case fails^{and is, accordingly,rejected.}

¶46

There shall bt: no order as to^costs.

¶47

Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, shall}

¶48

stand closed.

¶49

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR

\fl

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

l The Sales^{Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad(with records' if any)}

¶55

2 The Appellate^{DeputyCommissioner(CT)' HyderabadRural} Division,^HYderabad

¶56

The^{Commercial Tax Officer' Kodad} '^{Dwarakanagar'}

¶57

One CC^{to SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Advocate IOPUCI}

¶58

One CC^{to SRI SWAROOPOORILLA'SPECIALSC' FOR STATE} rAX(OPUc)

¶59

Two CD^CoPies

kut/psr tF-

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/04/2025

ORDER

.l t<br>22ffPm
,s<br>\ il

TREVC.No.211 of 2008

REJECTING THE TR.EVC

WITHOIJT COSTS

?*VL-^d!,i

M/S.Ncl Industries Limited v. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Ncl Industries Limited 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs M/S Yalamanchali Finance and Trading Private Ltd.

The Commr of Income Tax [Central] Hyderabad Vs M/S Sms Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Hyderabad

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

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor Vs Union of India

M/S. Vimta Labs Ltd., Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Vimta Labs Ltd. Hyd Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyd