Telangana High Court
M/S.Ncl Industries Limited vs The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 8 April, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO
NANDIKONDA
TREVC No.211 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Ms. Akruti Agarwal, learned counsel representing
Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Standing
Counsel for State Tax for the respondent. Perused the record.
2. The instant tax revision case has been filed by the assessee
under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax,
1957 (for short 'the Act').
3. The challenge is to the order passed by the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in T.A.No.667 of 2001 decided on
16.07.2008.
4. Vide the said impugned order, the learned Tribunal has
dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee affirming the order
passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) dated
26.02.2001.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,
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.
6. So far as the first point of purchase of iron ore is concerned,
the very first paragraph of the order of the learned 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:
"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".
7. As regards the second issue so far as purchase and use of
HSD oil (diesel) by the petitioner is concerned, 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 far as the purchase
and use of diesel is concerned. According to the petitioner, the
diesel that they 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 manufacturing process and thus it was well within the ambit
of G.O.Ms.No.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. However,
perusal of the records, more particularly the findings given by the
Commercial Tax 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 for transporting raw material from the quarry to the
factory. The officers also found that when the bills were prepared
so far as the payment to transporters is concerned, 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
petitioner would be liable to be taxed on the diesel that was
provided to the transporters by the petitioner for transportation of
raw material.
8. 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 learned 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
tax so far as the said quantity of fuel provided by the petitioner to
the transporters is concerned.
9. Given the concurrent findings of fact by all the authorities
and that there are no strong materials to hold the finding to be
erroneous, we do not find any merits in the tax revision case filed
by the petitioner.
10. The tax revision case fails and is, accordingly, rejected.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
08.04.2025
Lrkm
