Revenue's tax revision challenging Tribunal's order allowing concessional tax rate to a cement company and excluding freight charges from turnover. Court held sales to local bodies entitle concessional rate and freight not part of turnover absent fresh materials; revision rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
13447l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
TAX REVISION CASE NO: 97 OF 2009
Tax Revision Case filed Under Section 22 (1) Read with Rule 40 of APGST Rules Act under Section APGST Act against the order dated 02-01-2009 made in T.A.Nos. 963 of 2002, on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for the assessment year 1993-1994 (APGST) preferred against the order dated 16-01-2002 made in Appeal No. Ni191/2001-2002 on the file of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, Rural Division, Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated 07-06-2001 made in G.l.No. 14646/93-94(CST) on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad.
Between:
The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep- by the State Representative before STAT, D.No. 54-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
M/s. Priyadarshini Cements Ltd., Ramapuram
...RESqONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran (AGP) representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla (Spl. GP for State Tax)
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Tarun Chadha representing Sri Karthik Ramana Putta4reddy
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
r i
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICEP.SAMKOSHY A}{D THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICENARSINIG RAO NANDIKONDA
TREVC No.97 OF 2009
JUDGMENT(per Hon'ble Sri JusticeP.Sam Koshl)
Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, leamedAssistan.Covernment
Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oori[[a,learned Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax forthe appellant and Mr. Tarun Chadha, learned counsel representingMr. KarrhillRamana Puttamreddy, leamed cpunsel tbr therespondent. P::rusedthe record.
2
had set asidethe order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) holding it to be unsustainableand granting the relief ofa concessional rate of tax to the respondent-assessee' The Revenue,in the courseof ref'erring the petition,had raisedtwo questions oflaw: (i) whether lreight chargescollected will become part of tumoveror not? and (ii) whether the appellantis entitled to avail concessionalrate of tax by producing'D' formseven though he was nota GovemmentauthoritY?
it has been decided thatthe sale ol cements made by the cement
'AIR1967 8556 SC
3
companies to the Zilla Parishads and other local bodies would undoubtedly falt within the purview of sale made to the Statc cntil-ling thenl to avail the concessional rate of tax. l.he sanrc vierv has been recently been taken by this very Bench in'f REVC No. l01 o12009 which stood decided on I 1.04.2025 reitcr.ar.ing the same view that a sale of cernent made to the Zilla parishaci/ Gram Panchayat and other local bodies would amourt to sale rnade to the State entitling the company to avail the benefit ol-concessional rate of tax. In view of the sanrc. qLrestion No.2 raised in the instant tax revision case also stands, dccided against the Rcvenue.
4
assessmentorder.AccordingtotheTribunal,thenrater.ialswhich were available withthe Assessing Oftrcer at the first instance and which in spite ofproperscrLltiny cor'rld uot bc rloticedby thc Assessing Officercannotsubsequently be taken to be a fresh material tomake a re-assessment 'fhe Tribunal had reachedto theconclusionthatintermsolthesaleagrcement'cementtobe sold on ex-workbasis and thc appcllant cement comparly is not responsiblefor the transitrisk which is ah'r'ays on the buycr' The freightchargeswereliable to be taxcdil'thesales reflected on 'for destinationbasis'wl-rich was not the case of the cotnpany or theRevenueintheinstantcase.Undisputedly,therespondents could not findout any fresh matcr-ials subseqtrctltly uneatlhed nor was thereany fresh materialscollcctcd liorn tl-re petitionernor were any freshmaterialproducedbetore-the AppellateDeputy Commissioner.Rather the Appeltate [)epLrty Conrrnissionerhas not takeninto consideration any li'es[-rInaterials lrom the records which had notgone through the eyes ol the Asscssingofhcer earlier tbrre-assessment.In the itlstantcase'all these materials were alreadyavailable to the respondentwith the Assessing Ofhcer having dulysubmitted by the respondetlt-assessee'
5
Appellate Tribunal so far as thefreightcharges are r:oncemed to be eroneous or bad in tawcattingtbr any interferent:e. The said
qirestion of law also stands decidedin favour of the respondenr
assessee and against thepetitioner-revenue.
shall be uo orderas to costs.
Consequently, Iniscellaneouspetitionspending,i I any, sha[[
stand closed
SD/. K. SRINIVASARAO JOINT REGISTRAR
/ffRUE COPY//
secf$JPdrrrcen
To,
VH/gh
I
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1510712025
<i o (. r'rc s,,r_.i<br>.,!c ') 'j\ <br>0 3 s[P 2U5
i-.io
+ .<br>..',...'.',/
JUDGMENT
TREVC.No.97 of 2009
REJECTING THE TREVC
p
) w
3 issues framed by the court
Whether freight charges collected form part of turnover for sales tax assessment.
Whether the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax on 'D' forms despite not being a government authority.
Whether re-assessment could be based on materials already available to the Assessing Officer at first assessment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶5
AIR 1967 8556 SC · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the State Representative before STAT
M/s. Priyadarshini Cements Ltd., Ramapuram
P. Sam Koshy
Narsing Rao Nandikonda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
