M/S.Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S.Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Tax Revision Cases disposed of reserving the petitioner's right to revive the same in the event its grievance still survives; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs. No adjudication on the merits of the tax grievances.

Issue for consideration

How to deal with the three Tax Revision Cases at this stage, given that counsel could not contact the petitioner and the petitioner-company has reportedly gone into liquidation.

Court's answer

In light of the learned counsel's submissions, the Tax Revision Cases are disposed of as of now, reserving the petitioner's right to revive the same in the event the grievance of the petitioner still survives.

Ratio / Principle

With the aforesaid liberty, the Tax Revision Cases stand disposed of, and there shall be no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order dated 21-08-2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (authored by Justice P. Sam Koshy; bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao) disposing of Tax Revision Case Nos. 243, 247 and 257 of 2009, filed under Section 22(1) of APGST Act (See Rule 40 of APGST Rules) by M/s. Klen and Marshalls Manufactures & Exporters Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad against the State of Andhra Pradesh. The revisions targeted the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nampally orders dated 01-04-2009 (T.A.Nos. 920 of 200.., 965 of 2007 and 1100 of 2004) for assessment years 2003-2004, 2002-2003 and 2001-2002, which arose from Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) appeals (Nos. P/267/2004-05 dt.10-11-2005; P/1244/2005-06 dt.15-04-2006; P/398/2001-02) and original Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle assessments/orders (dated 14-07-2004 and 24-01-2002). Learned counsel Ms. Harshana Reddy (representing Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy) reported being unable to contact the petitioner and that the petitioner-company had gone into liquidation; the Court accordingly disposed of the cases as of now, reserving the petitioner's right to revive them in the event its grievance still survives, closed pending miscellaneous applications, and ordered no costs. The substantive tax disputes were not adjudicated on the merits.

[^348e ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

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

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE Nos: 243 247 and257 ol 2O09

Tax Revision Case No.243 of2009

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) of APGST Act^(See Rule 40 of APGST Rules) to revise the order dated 01-04-2009 in T.A.No.920 of 200 for assessment yeat 2003-2004 on the file of the Sales Tax^{AppellateTribunal,} Nampally, Hyderabad, preferred against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) in Appeal No.P/267120O4-O5, dated^{10-11-2005, preferred} against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle,^Hyderabadin Assessment No.NlU2003-04 dated¹ 4-O7 -2004,

Between:

M/s.Klen and Marshalls lManufactures & Exporters P!'t Ltd., Hyderabad.

...Petitioner/Appel lant

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its State Representative before STAT Oio.Nampally, Hyderabad.

...RespondenURespondent

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Harshana Reddy, representing

Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

Tax Revision Case No.247 of2009

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) of APGST Act^(See Rule 40 APGST Rules) to revise the order dated 01-04-2009 in T.A.No.965 of 2007 for assessment year 2002-2003 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nampally, Hyderabad,^preferred against the order of the Appellate^{Deputy Commissioner(CT)} Panjagutta Division in Appeal No.P 124412005-06^{dated 15-4-2006, preferred against}

..' the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Khairtabad )cle in Assessment No.NIL/2003-04 dated 1 4-O7 -2004.

Between:

M/s.Klen and Marshalls Manufactures & Exporters Pvt Ltd^-lyderabad. .. l)etitioner/Appellant

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its State Repre.3ntative before STAT O/o. Nampally, Hyderabad

...Res P':n6gngResPondent

Counsel forthe Petitioner: Ms. Harshana Reddy, representing Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy

Counsel forthe Respondent: None Appeared

Tax Revision Case No.257 of 2009

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) o'f APGST /l\ct (See Rule 40 of APGST Rules) to revise the order dated 01 -04-2009 in T.r, lJo.1 100 of 2004 for assessment year 2001-2O02 on the file of the Sales Tr, x Appellate Tribunal, Nampally, Hyderabad, preferred against the order of rrr: Appellate Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.P/398/2001-02, dated 20-O3-200t., ;referred against the order of Commercial Tax Officer, Khairtabad Circle, Hyderabi- I dated 24-01-2002 in G.l.No. /2001-02.

Between:

M/s.Klen and Marshalls Manufactures & Exporters Pvt Ltd l- yderabad. l'etitioner/Appellant

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its State Repres I r tative before STAT O/o. Nampally, Hyderabad.

... Res r: o n de nURes ponde nt

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Harshana Reddy, represenl in g

Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy

Counsel forthe Respondent: None Appeared

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ST'DDALA CHALAPATIII^RAO

TAX REIIISION CASE Nos.243 247 ard257^{OF 2OO9}

COMMON OR.DER:^(per Hon'ble Sn Justice^P.SamKoshg)

Ms. Harshana Reddy, learned counsel^{representing Mr. T.Bala} Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for^{petitioner on record, submits that} for the last couple ol days, she^{has been making effortsto contact the} petitioner's company, but in spite of^{best efforts, she has not been} able to contact them. As^{per her instructions,the petitioner-company} has since gone into liquidation and^{perhapsthat would be said} reason, therc was no response^{from its side.}

In the light of the submissions^{madeby the learned counselfor} the petitioner, as of now, the^{Tax Revision Cases are disposed of} reserving the righl of the^{petitioner to revivethe samein the event of} grievance o[ the petitioner still survives.

With the aforesaid liberty, the Tax^{Revision Casesstand} disposed of. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, if any,shail stand closed'}

Sd/.A.V.S.S.C.S.M.^VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Sales Tax^{APpellateTribunal, Nampally, Hyderab} (with records, if anY) 2 The ApPellate^{DePutYCommissioner(CT) PanjaguftaDivision, Hyderabad} .) The Commercial^{TaxOfficer,Khairtabad Circle,HYderabad} 4 One CC to^{Mr. T. Bala M} ohan Reddy,^Advocate [OPUC] E wo CD CoPies

kam

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10812025

COMMON ORDER

a, .' .,
.<br>10 [[I ilifi . I
\ .\ ,1),.,'..'.

TREVC.Nos.243,247 and257 ot 2009

DISPOSING OF TAX REVISION CASES uLllx