Dismissed¶127

M/S. K.Kantha Reddy and Co., v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC7 Jan 2026TREVC/38/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TREVC Nos. 38, 43, 55 of 2011, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, 07-01-2026, coram P. Sam Koshy & Suddala Chalapathi Rao (common order). M/s. K. Kantha Reddy & Co. v. State of AP. Turnover tax levy under Section 5-A of APGST Act 1957 upheld in favour of Revenue, following Division Bench decision in Special Appeal No.9 of 2004 (decided 30-04-2015) and relying on Spectro Boring Company (2006) 138 APSTJ 6 and Navayuga Engineering Company (2007) 45 APSTJ 1; counsel conceded precedents answered the question. STAT orders in T.A.Nos. 204, 740 and 166 of 2007 (dated 02-12-2010 and 20-12-2010) upheld by dismissal of the revisions; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; Tax Revision Cases dismissed, no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

M/S. K.Kantha Reddy and Co., Vs State of A.P. — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; Tax Revision Cases dismissed, no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶127

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the facts and in law, the upholding of the levy of turnover tax under Section 5-A of the APGST Act is proper, legal and justified.

¶61

Court's answer

The common question of law — whether the upholding of the levy of turnover tax under Section 5-A of the APGST Act is proper, legal and justified — stands answered in favour of the revenue, holding that the turnover tax would be leviable on the charges in terms of Section 5(0 [sic, as printed] as well.

¶125

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Division Bench decision in Special Appeal No.9 of 2004 and the judicial precedents of this Court (Spectro Boring Company; Navayuga Engineering Company), which learned counsel for the petitioner conceded squarely answered the questions of law raised, the Court found no merits in the three Tax Revision Cases filed by the petitioner.

¶122

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of a Division Bench (P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao) of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, dated 07-01-2026, dismissing Tax Revision Cases Nos. 38, 43 and 55 of 2011 filed by M/s. K. Kantha Reddy & Co., PWD (R&B) Contractors, under Section 22(1) of the APGST Act, 1957 against three orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 02-12-2010 (T.A.Nos. 204 and 740 of 2007) and 20-12-2010 (T.A.No. 166 of 2007). The common question of law — whether upholding of the levy of turnover tax under Section 5-A of the APGST Act was proper, legal and justified — was answered in favour of the Revenue, turnover tax being held leviable. The Court followed the Division Bench decision in Special Appeal No.9 of 2004 (decided 30-04-2015), produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, and relied on the High Court decisions in M/s. Spectro Boring Company Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 138 APSTJ 6, and M/s. Navayuga Engineering Company Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 45 APSTJ 1, which petitioner's counsel conceded squarely answered the questions raised. Revisions dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶1

I3,189 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TI{E STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE.SEVENTH DAY OF JANUMY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDOALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶7

TAX REVIS CASE Nos: 38.43 55 ot 2O11

¶8

Case No.38 of 201

¶9

Tax Revision Case under Section 22{1)^{(see rule} of^{40) of the APGST Act'} 1957 to revise the order dated O2-12-2O1O^passbd in T.A.No.204 d^{2OO7 on the file} of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,^(STAT), Hyderabad.

¶10

M/s. K.Kantha Reddy & Co., PWD (R & B) Contractors^{4-1-100, Attapur,} Bahadurpura, Hyderabad 5OO 264.

¶11

...AppellanUAppel{ant

¶12

AND

¶13

State of AP rep. by SR before STAT ll^{Floor, Commercial TaxesComplex} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenURespondent

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.R.R. Viswanath

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Swaroop Oorilla,

¶17

Special Government Pleader for State Tax

¶18

Tax Retision Case No-43 of 2O11

¶19

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1)^(see rule of^{4O) of the APGST Act'} 1957 to revise the order dald 20-C,r',-ZJ'10^{passedin T.A.No.166ot 2OO7 on the file} of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,^{(STAT), Hyderabad.}

¶20

Between:

¶21

M/s. K.Kantha Reddy & Co., PWD^(R & B)^{Contractors4-1-1OO' Attapur,} Bahadurpura, Hyderabad 5O0 264.

¶22

...AppellanUAppellant

¶23

AND

¶24

State of AP rep. by SR before STAT ll^{Flnor, CommercialTaxes Complex} Nampally, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent

¶25

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.R.R. Viswanath

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, Special Gdvernment^pleader for State Tax

¶28

No. 2011

¶29

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(1) (see rule of 40) of the APGST Act, 1957 to revise the order dated o2-12-2o1o passed in T.A.No.740 of 2007 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (STAI), Hyderabad.

¶30

M/s. K.Kantha Reddy & Co., PWD (R & B) Contractors 4-1-100, Attapur, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad 500 264.

¶31

¶32

.AppellanUAppellant

¶33

9tate^{of l\P rep.by .SR before STAT ll Floor, CommercialTaxesComplex} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶34

...RespondenURespond€nt

¶35

Counsel for tfie Petitioner: Mr. S.R:R. Viswanath

¶36

Counsel for t:he Respondent Mr. Swaroop Oorilla,

¶37

Special Government^pleader for State Tax

¶38

The Court made the fotlowing: COMMON ORDER

¶39

i'i.. IN THE HIGH COI]RT^FOR tHE j^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT YDERABAI)

¶40

¶41

THE, IIONOT'RABLE SRI.TUSTICE^P.SAIVIKOSHY

¶42

axo

¶43

i: THE HONOT'RABLE^{SRI JUSTICE} SUDDALA CHALAPATHI^RAO

¶44

¶45

Dated: 0.7,01.2026

¶46

TREVC No.38 of 2011: Between: ' , IWs.K.Kantha ReddY^& Co. : PWD (R&B) Contractors, 4-1-100, Attapur, BahadurPura, - , : Petitioner Hyderabad - 500 264. ,

¶47

And

¶48

The State of Andhra^Pradesh Rep by SR before STAT, II Floor, Commercial^{TaxesComPlex,}

¶49

.Respondent

¶50

COMNION OINDDY ber^{Hon'bte Sri} lustice^{P'SAM KoSHYt:} ,:

¶51

Heard Mr.s-R.R.Viswanath,^{learned counsel for the}

¶52

petitioner and Mr.Swaroop^{Ooril'la, leamedSpecialGovernrnent}

¶53

,1 Pleader for State^{Tax in all the three Tax Revision Cases' Perused}

the record.

l'"r

':.2

i':.

2' These are the three r* n"rririon cases fired by the same petitioner assailing the three orders passed r,i: uv fir" -;j hamed srAT in t T'A'No'204 of zoo. for the *u"i**t year ' rnrr-rrdecided - on -^{M IZS0J0++.ANo.740} of 20Ql:for :l' i:^ji tfe-assEsTment , year l99g:99

¶59

decirled on 02. r2.zoto and T.A.No;.r66 of zool for the assessmenr , ;: year 1999-2OOO decided on zOrOq.2OlO. Since, the substantial i '.,' questions of law contended by thq pedtioner in alt these three Tax assessrnenr Revision cases been identi"u J*""pt ro, tt " [r;;r, yearri and three independent oiders having been passed by the learned STAT, rhese three ."uirioi petitions stands decided by this

¶60

comrnon order

¶61

The question of law to considerediwas wtrether on the facts and law upholding of the of turnover tax under Section 5-A of APGST Acr by the is proper, Iegal and justified. Today, when the maffer is up for hearing, learned Special Govemment pleader for pnoduced before this Bench a Division Bench decision of .t this;:Courr directly dealing with the ,'i -t ':^.L question of law involved in tne itnstant Tax Revision Cases i.e., ,ii i Special Appeal No.9 of 2004 wtribh stood decided b):tnE Division :i, : :: .i! .ir i ii. ' :ii ,ii iii'l' :l' i:

¶62

¶63

Benctr of this Court on 30.04.2015. The Division Borch dealing with the statutory pmvision particularly Section 5-A of the APGST Act answEred the question of law in favour of Revenue. While dealing with the question, the Division Bench held as under:

¶64

(a) There is no dispute with ke faca, whic* are narrated supra. The AC (nt) who had initially made a provisianal assratsment had assessd the assessee for the year 1997-98 under the Act and hd levied tumover tax under Section 5-A of the Act on rte purchase htrnover of milk vtde his proceedings dated 26-06.1999. The aggrieved assess@ had preferred an appeal before the ADC disputing that the turnover sabjected to tax under Section 6-A is not tiable to turnover tax under Section 5-A. The ADC had allowed the appeal of the assessee upholding the said contention of the assessee. The CTO had passed the. consequential Jinal assessment orders of the assessee following^{the orders} of^the ADC and had thus not levied turnover tax on the purchase turnover of milk Finding the said orders of the ADC and the consequential final orders of the CTO prejudicial to the interests of the revenue of the Snte, the Commissioner having entertained a suo motu revision had issued a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing and had finalty confirmed the proSal fn the

¶65

¶66

.chow cause notice and had auordingly set aside the ,ord*s of the ADC and revtsd theJinal ansquential asiesisment ordeis of tie CfO 7o, the year lggT-ga under the Act and had levied turaover tax at the rate of l% on purchase turnover of milk i.e., Rs.15,84,00,140/-. Ihus, the Commissioner had rearded a finding that turnover tax under Section 5-A is leviable and payable on taxable filmover under the charging Section 6A.

¶67

(b) lYe have given earnest consideration to the facx and the submissions. In view of the fac* and the contentions, it is necessary ta refer to infra, the provisions of law namely Sections 6A and 5A of the Act dealing respectively with leuy of tax on turnover relating to purchases of certain goods and l"uy of turnover tax.

¶68

6A Leuy of tax on turnover relating to purchase of certain goods:

¶69

Every dealer, who in the course ofbusiness:

¶70

i. purchases any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Ac| from a registered dealer in circutnstances in which no tax is payable under Section 5 or under Section 6, as the case may be, or

¶71

¶72

ii- Purchases any^{goods(rte sale or purdtase of} which is liable n ux under this^Aa) fun^a Person orter than a registerd detler;-snd

¶73

c. @nsum6 such^{goods in any manufrcure of} other goods for sale or^{consumesthem otherwise, or;}

¶74

a- disposes of such^{goods in the mannerother} than by way ofsale in the State,^or

¶75

b. despatches^{them to a pl.ace outside the Sute} except as a direct result of^{sale or purchasein the} course of inter-State trade^{or commerce,shall pay nx} on the turnover relating^{to purchase aforesaid at the} same rate at which but for^{the existenceof the} aforementioned circamstances,^{the tax wouWhave} been leviable (on such^{goods underSection 5 or} Section 6.

¶76

5-A Leuy of nx on tur^{over: (l) Notwith*anding} anything contained in this Act,^{tax shall be levied at} the rate of [one paise in every^{rupee ofa turnover ofa} duler, other than the dealers^{mentiondin sub-sqtion} (I-A)J whose total turnovq in a^{yearexceeds ntpees} ten lakhs;

¶77

Providd that the tax shall^{not be levid under} this section on that part of the^{turnover of any dealer} on which the dealer is liable to Pay^{tax at the point of} lery tspeAlied in the First Schedule,^{acept petrol,} dicsel oil, aviation turbine fuel,^{engine oils, lubri@ting}

¶78

¶79

r7\

¶80

oils, greases bratre Jruids, furnace otr and ail kinds of motor vehiclesJ Second Schedule, Fifth Schedule and Seventh Schedule to the Act:

¶81

Provided further that no tax under thts section shall be payable on that part of turnover which relatq to;

¶82

i. sale or purchase of goods specified in third Schedule;

¶83

it. sale or purchase of gotods specified in Fourth Schedule;

¶84

iii. sale or purchase of goods specified in Sixth Schedule;

¶85

iv. sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce;

¶86

v. sole or purchase of goods in the course of export out of the territory of India or sa.le or purchase in the course of tmport into the territory oflndia;

¶87

vi. sale or purchase of goods exempt from tax gmerally under sub-section (I) of section 9 of the satd Act;

¶88

vii- ail amounts corected-b1tw-ayof tcix underthe provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, tg\6.

¶89

The turnover of the present assessee exceeded Rs.l0 lakhs during the subject year is not in dtspute. section 5A' which storts wtth a non-abstante crantse, clearly says that tav shall be levied at the rote of loh in

\ <br>

every rury of a turnover^{of a dealerorter thur the} dealers mentioned^{in sub-sution l'A whose nnl} turnover in theyear^{exceedsRs-10 taklts'Iltus' futton} 5A specificatly^{mentions the turnovers whichare not} liable n tux and^{in that turrpversmentioned therein'} the transactions^{under Section6A are not specifically} mentiond. Further'^{the purchase of mtlk from} unregistered dellers^{dles wt come under the points of} leuy mentioned in^{the provision of low' It is also} pertinent to note that^{by an amendmentto Section 6A} the words^'or Section^{5A' wereomittedfrom Sution} 6A by Act 22 of^{1995 with efea} fron^0I'04'1995' Therefore, on a^{plain and harmoniousreading ofboth} the proisions, it^{appears that there is no prohibition} from^{leuying turnover tax underSection 5A on the} transactions covered^{by Sqtion 6A. Since the purchase} turnover which is disputd^{turnoverrelatd n} purchase of nitk made from^{unregisterddealers'the} same is not eltgible for^{uemption as no exemption was} granted by the Govemment^{under Section9(l) of the} Act in respect of such^{turt overs- It is not in disputcthat} leuy of tax under Section^{9(I) on sale of} fresh^milh curd and butter milk^{soldby the dealersexclusively} dealing in them and^{alsotheir products are uentPt} from^{tax.Therefore,on a plain considerationof the} provisions of law,^{we are ol the consideredview that}

¶94

¶95

the orders of the Cbmmissioner leuytng tu of Ig4 on tne $lgyg! _t_yru_ouer tnvolvgt! in fke ruafier on .-a finding that turnover tax under Sectton 5A. is payable on taxable turnover under charging Section 6A js correct. Potnt is accordingly answerd.

¶96

4- Further it is refleted that the finding of the Division Benc.h stands further fortified from the two decisions which were also considered and reried upon by the Tribunal while dearing with the appeals, where under the Tribunal has reproduced the judgrnents of this High court in, the case of rw/s.spectro Bouring coru'oany Limited, Mourari & others u state of Andhra Pradeshtand arso ws-Nauyuga Engineering company Limited u state of Andhra pradesh2 wherein again similar issues were taken up ftrr consideration and High court has categorica,y held the turnover leviable under section 5-A of the APGST Act. It would be relev.nt at this juncture to reproduce the rerevant portion of the Tribunal's order with regard to these two aforesaid judgments are concerned:

¶97

I^{tzoocl38 ApsrJ} 6 '1zooty45 ApsrJ pag

¶98

<br>

¶99

:rDl D oaln!^ol Papafqns^aq Pu^{pfoqs auosa,fl} nt p ua1 alsDq^{o? yalca[qns s! raAou,n, aqt araqn} s! xq ra^ount^ary to^{a1mollor aqt Pt1l (!!)}

¶100

:sD^ouJnl qcns^{uo alqD! al} s! xtl .o ouru^{ou 'm, pata[ns spoo8 gg uolroas} PUD flg^uopcas "DPun^{\floq aculsPuo r0o1totulod o11toa} tfuo to xtt paasns 4ou^{sDrlqztqtt'tralourt'l atltto Ttod} tDW^uo Quo^{a1qo1,o1 s, ml ta^ou)nt lo,tl (l)}

¶101

:?aPuaruoc sot^ 7t's1uo11addo^ary lo t1oqaq uO^{'uoaoraplsuoc} n!^{dn auo) saq gS uolQaspuD} gg uollrllas Dpun^{xDt o7 pa\ca[qnssratourn, aqt uo} salyoqtno puolswy/saltttoqlno^{Sulssassv a4l ,(q xol} ntounl lo thal^{aq, 'qoaddo} to^{qqDq slttt uI}

¶102

'd9 wD gg suolcas^{u1 patolndl1ssta ou)n! aqt ub apo1rc1s1} n)t JiriouJry 'antataql^{'suolsqcra aql u!} PqDraunua uaaq ,ou "^oq 19 Puo^{gsuoltzas 'soslaotd} arlt u! ,no^{qads tQ\ocyo*a\o"a D'l sl,/o!s?ll!cx,' Dq,o} lll WD^{ralourrt, a1qoa&mtlcatq to uoltofidwoctot} rapl,to,td^oqD flq^{aSnqc aql satDarztluo lou t1c14ttt} uolps &u1fuoqc^{patot&atutuo s!} YS^uolrns,

¶103

:saqlot

¶104

so Wq W p^{rasqo g} tJSdY 8E^{(t00d u1 paltodat} ttraryd^{ottlpuyto entg 'A eaqlo} T^1PPoN'PaUu!7 tuodtttoS t41nog^o4tads's/nu! Punq14^s'W

¶105

¶106

) v

¶107

uolrcas {o.uoltDtatdra?u, tol g uo11c)g u1 patoslaua sD m, fo apt lrs-Dq puo ha1 lo 7u1od lo tdaaua aqt Uodul ot t"artoc tou atolatarll n ry .p?ag[ pauhlsso q u1 to\d pnl uortcas olo yod Buucoua aql aalg o7 so os asnDlo aluolsqo_uou lo uolt"nporru, ,tq fio pauon uaag sDl auos aq,^,raqtouo tltltt Suolrcas asaq| lo tuo to^{sl.tod Sutcoua} aql aaaa4J"q plbfuoc ,uatoddo awos s! ararfi .ta^oraq puo atn|op&zT atg t(g paToaullap so sp|agftuata[tp q arD]?do lg puo gg ,yg ,g uoucaS 'ttod Suncoua lo uoltotado aqt uto{ suol1dacra fio Salatoc suqslaotd uolto1ndwoc so lla.A so BwL.totlc aq, Woq not stt a!.filttl szlot ,! sollcnu so u1fiasg u1 apoc a|aldutoc D s! t! lDW raMasqo puo lg puo gg ,ys 'S uoltcas Sutztotlc atll pazeouo lDunqyJ a%[

¶108

ds PUD^gs

¶109

uolrcas ut p|o1dua|uoc )aloutn, ary uo a1qoalnqc s! xDl ra^outt4 atotataql puD yS uogcag lo uolgotado arfl wott woucas ayarfi pa?nqco {isnoosuoc tou sDq arryqqtql aqt puo looq afipts "rl, u!-a.bq, tryaqD 2ra04 ls puD gg aolpas ,uolrcnpo4u, sl, lo^{aup aq,} ,o pao apoc faulntuoc 1[7as o s1 yS aolroas lor0 faPualuor satt4 t!^{,anua^ay} at17lofioqaq ug

¶110

.tcy aq| to daaas n41c "loqtrr o a^Drt touuac ,, atotataql puD ary)aio o, spualal 1! ,12!qt^ uoltcas .m\nc1yod rfuo ol olat ,oq saop y -S uogras u! asnop aruotDqD_uou atfi Dql 6!l)

-'l

5E and 5F which are indeperdent^{charging sections.} Sntion 5 spealrs about leuy of^{tax on sale or purchase} ofgoods", wheieas Sectioi 5A^{speala about} "leuy^of tax on htmover". The field of operation^{of both} srctions is diferent and it is^{not correct a hod rtat} where basic tax is levied under Section^{5 there could} be no leuy of turnover tax as^{a general proposition} applicable to all transactions.^{Sincethe turnover} contemplated by Sution SE and^{5F are special class} by themselves, the concept of basic^{leuy on sale or} purchase as per Schdules under Sution 5^{cannot be} imported and applied for levy of fiirnover^{tali on these} lurnovers under Section 5A except those^indicatedin the first proviso for the scheduled^goods. Accordingly held:

¶115

"There is^{nothing in Section5A to remotely} indicate or even suggest that the charging section^54, although all other exclusions have categoricaAy^spelt out in the provisos- On the fact of the clear langmge of Section 5A, it is not permissible to excfude^the turnover pertaining to lease rental and worlcs antractfrom the purview of TOT by any implication or presumption".

¶116

Dealtng with tle non-abstante clauseⁱⁿ Section 5A, the Tribunal held that although^Section 5A star* with a non-abstante clause, it was^engrafted in the section by the legislature as a measure of abundant precaution so as to avoid any conJlict which may ensue while giving efect n the^provistons of enacting part ofSection 54.

¶117

¶118

¶119

.. The sanc view was expressd by this Tribunaf in Ws Nawyuga Engineering Crglt_tpany Limited V* State ol Andhra pradqh reported in e007) 45 APSTI page I, which was affirmed by the Htgh Court of Atdhra Pradesh, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh hetd asfollows:

¶120

. _^{t|ft" DivisionBench endorsed the} decision of the tulq TaxAppettate Tribunal that Sectioi-S)-i o, integrated charying section, untaining ade whic* not onb creot* the charge but also- provides for comtrrutation of the chargeable turniver for 'the p:rl:t" -{ iu- W. The turnovers peraining to Section 5E and 5F are also exigible ti the saita*. f:,!h:J,.Sectbn^{5A_x specifrcitty**ot} 1or--to,y^o7 ror urat came on Stante later than Section 5E and SF which were already in the statute Ooo,t. f,ni ,oia Plluision reflects the latest will of l*gislature to leuy TOT even on turnovers under Seition'SE oni si".-

¶121

The aforesaid judicial precedents of this Court on the very same question of law has not been disputed by the teamed counsel for the petitioner and he fairly concedes to the fact that the aforesaid judgments squarely answers the questions of raw raised by the petitioner in these three Tax Revision Cases as well.

¶122

For the aforesaid rcasons, we do not find any merits in the present Tax Revision Cases filed by the petitioner. The questions of Iaw as has been decided by the judicial precedents stands answered

¶123

\ \

¶124

¶125

in favourof revenue holding that the tur-novertax would be leviable

¶126

on thecharges in terms of Section 5(0 as well.

¶127