Dismissed

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal v. M/S.Kedia Electricals Limited

Telangana HC7 Jul 2025TREVC/98/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State's tax revisions challenged Tribunal orders holding there was no misuse of H Forms by an assessee that purchased raw materials and components to manufacture ceiling fans which were exported. Applying Supreme Court precedent on Section 5(3) CST Act, the High Court found no infirmity and rejected both revisions.

What did the court decide?

Both tax revision cases were rejected/devoid of merits; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Vs M/S.Kedia… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

HrGH couRr^t?+ I?ESIIrEDoF TELANGANA

¶2

I\NONDAY,^{THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY} ''rw5iuousAND AND TWENTY FlvE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEP'SAM KOSHY} THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE NARSINGRAO NANDIKONDA}

¶5

TAX REVISIO^{N CASENO : 98 &'t 07 oF 2009}

¶6

TAX REVISI^{oNCASE NO.98 0F2009:}

¶7

Revision^{filed under Section22(1) of APGSTACT RAA/ Rule 10 of APGST} Rules, against^{the Orders passed by the Sales TaxAppellate Tribunal,Andhra} Pradesh, Hyderabad^{in T.A'No618/2008' dated021 2.2OOB. lor the Assessment} Year 2004-2005,^{preferred against the orderspassed by the APPellate DePutY} Commissioner^{(CT), HyderabadRural Division'Hyderabad in R/54/2007-2008&} N128l2Oo7^{-2008, d128'04 2008' preferred againstthe orders PassedbY the} Ranga^{ReddYDistrict ln} Commercial^{Tax Officer'} Fathenagar^Circle' Gl.No.1102/2004-05/CST'^{dated 14 12 2007 M}

¶8

COMMON^{CAUSE TITLE lN TREVCNoS'98 & 107 OF 2009:}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ilfi .111"'.'^iyiuS'^ff"r',iit:,:i#"T:"ifl?#:'Jt%"J:ativeberoresrAr

¶11

PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

M/S.KEDIA^{ELECTRICALS LIMITED' Balanagar' Ranga Reddy District}

¶14

RESPONDENT

¶15

-rr--

¶16

TAX REVIstoN CASE NO :107 0F 2009:

¶17

Revision fired Under section 22(1) or, Apcsr Act Riw Rure .10 0f ApGsr Rules' against the orders passed by the sares Tax Appeflate Tribunar, Andhra Pradesh' Hyderabad in T A No 6'r712008, drated 02.12.200g, for the assessment year 2003-2004 (csr - penarty) preferrecr against the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). Hyderrabad Rural Division, Hyderabad rn Rr54r2007-08 & Rr128r2007-08 dated 28.otr.2oo8, preferred against the orders passed by the commercrar rax officer, Fathr:nagar circre, Ranga Reddy District, in Assmnt.No RC.l OBO/2003_04/CST, dated 0g.02.2007.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI SAI AKATRSH, A oorilla, spl. ti.p.^{'sst'G'P' Rep' Mr' Swaroop}

¶19

Counset forthe Respondents: TEJpRAKASH TOSHNIWAL

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO} NANDTKONDA

¶22

TAX RE^{VISIONCASENos.98&107 of 2009}

¶23

COMMO^{NORDER@er Hon'bleSri JusliceI'.SumKosh)')}

¶24

Heard Mr.^{K' Sai Akarsh'teamed AssistantGovemment}

¶25

Pleader^{representingMr'Srvaroop Oorilla'learnedSpecial} GovemmentPteaderforStateTax,appearing[orthepetitionerand Mr.^{'lejprakash Toshniwal, leamed counsel lor the respondent'} Perused^{the record.}

¶26

These^{two tax revisioncaseshave been fited by the State} Govemment^{assailing the ordersdated 02'i2'2008passed in} T.A.Nos.6l7^{and 618 of 2008 by the leamed Sales Tax Appellate} 'fribunal, Andhra Pradesh, H1'derabad'^{(hereinafter're lertedas} 'Tribunat').^{Thesaid two T'As clecided by the Tribunalpertains to} the satne^{assesscefbr two difterentAsscssment years i'e '' 2003-04} and 2004-05.

¶27

The^{question of law involved is whetherthe respondent} assessee in^{fact has misusedthe "H" Forms thatwere issucdfor the} purchase of rarv^{materialsand components'}

¶28

¶29

4' According to the revenue, wha.t was purchased was not what was exported and thus there is breach of .,Ff, Forms issued to the respondent asscssee

¶30

lJpon pcrusal of the pleadings that are available on record, what is clearly rellecled is that the re:spondent assessee in fact had obtained "l{,, Fonns fbr the purchase of raw materials and component par.ts consulltable lor manufacture of thns in order to meet the exporl. There is no dispute so far as the purchascs that were made by the respondent assessee and in fact the raw materials and components were purely meant for manufacturing of fans. What is also not in dispute is the fact rihat the respondent assessee has exporled ceiling fans. It is also not in dispute that the ceiling fans exported by the responcient assessee were manuthctured only on assernblinq of'the raw materials and components purchased bv the respondent :rssessee.

¶31

In the teeth of the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case, if we Iook into thc findings given by the Tribunat, it is clearly reflected that the Tribunal also has appreciated the al.oresaid admitted facttral matrix insolhr as the expoft of fans being made by

¶32

¶33

the resPondent assessee, strictly^{irom the raw materials and} assessee.^{For readY} components^{purchased by the respondent} reference,^{the operative part of the Tribunal order is reproduced} hereinunder

¶34

''7. Applying^{the ratio ol the abovejudgcment'it is.clear that} h";r;;^{wls obtained hy M/s Kcdia Electricals trom their} ;;;lt;;; u.^{i,, tetution'to export' This is an admitted fact} u'hich has not^{been deniejby the Department'The} i"p"n"r,'. nurchased by^{contention the appellant only was has becn not expo(ed' that} -rather^{what was} the "rt.i,"",^o'.n"t"tl-Jo'pon".ntparls anJ "-ryl:f^'h: ^!:l: fun W.^{havealso gone through som€samp,le} ]:l::: submitted^{for our perusalby the appcllantlhe lnvotccs} .iriy tf."^{thatceilingfans were exportedby the-appellant} i"-"-(t""t^{down condiiionalongwith accessoriesand spare} p.a..'Wn",^{was purchasedby the appellant admittedlyu'ere} raw materials,^{componentparts lor which theappellant} issued H^{Formsto tt.'"it suppli"ttThus' it can be concluded} was no misuse^{#hFot,,'tas thepurchases madc} ;;;;" were in^{relationto exportof ceiling{ans and} f " iri,fr" "pp"f some of^{the sparesand component pu1t."t".exportedas} tn view of^{ttrc above' we are of the opinion that the} ,r"f-, "fr". ;;;1,}; "tdt^{lor both the assessment ycars need to be set} aside ancl^{accordingly we set-aside the orders of the} npp"f^f ""^{O"p'ty Cottissioner(C1')' IlyderabadRural} ijiJiriun' Hyietauua,^{as wellas thc consequentialordcrs} passed by thl^{lower authoritiesif any"}

¶35

What is also^{clearlyreflectedis the fact that thc finding} ar-rived at^{try the Tribunat is basedupon the j udgment of the} Hon'bte Supreme^{Court in the case of State of Karnatakav' AzatJ}

.t^*-

Coach Builders pvt. Ltd.r, wherein, the Hon,ble Supreme Court had decided the similar issue based upon its own ear_lier decision in the case of K. Gopinath Nair v. State of Kerala2, whereby, the two condirions required for rhc appl,icability of Section 5(3) of the CST Act, 1956, be ing, (a) such linality musr rake place after agreement or order under which the goods are to be exported; (b) it must be tirr the purpose of compll.ing with such agreement or export order.

¶40

In the instant case, rvhen rve look at the purchases and the exports rnade bv the respondent assesriee, there can be no dispute so far as the respondent assessee rneeting the afbresaid two conditions.

¶41

9 faking into consideration the afor.esaid factual matrix of the case and also the fact that the i'ribunal having forrified irs finding upon the judicial precedents ol. the tlon.ble Supreme Corrrt, the orders dated 02.12.200g passed by the ,l_ribunal cannot be fbund fault with and the instant trvo.lax Rev ision Cases, being devoid ot. '2ooe 1:,1 scc ::s '1tssz1 ro scc r.

¶42

¶43

¶44

There shall^be merits, deserves^{to be and are accordinglyrejected'}

¶45

no order^{as to costs.}

¶46

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

¶47

stand closed.

¶48

sd/-Kb?$+Nl[t?&[iR