Telangana High Court
The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal vs M/S.Hyderabad Engineering Industries ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
TREVC No.53 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant
Government Pleader representing the learned Special Government
Pleader for the State Tax for the petitioner/State and Mr. Tarun
Chadha, learned counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana
Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the
record.
2. The instant tax revision case is preferred by the State
assailing the order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in
T.A.No.1013 of 2001.
3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal had reversed
the finding passed by the Commercial Tax Officer order and also
by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.
4. The point of issue was whether the respondent/assessee
claiming that the two establishments namely M/s Hyderabad
Engineering Industries, IDA, Balanagar, Hyderabad and
M/s Jay Engineering Works, New Delhi were in fact one and the
same, as would be evident from Form G2 Certificate issued under
Section 5B of the APGST Act and the CST Act.
5. Perusal of the record would go to show that the Commercial
Tax Officer, at the first instance, vide his order dated 22.03.1999
disallowed the claim of the petitioner claiming exemption.
The said order was subjected to challenge before the Appellate
Deputy Commissioner, who also vide his order dated 28.02.2001
had dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the
Commercial Tax Officer, holding that the respondent/assessee has
failed to produce a document to show that the two establishments
are one and the same. These two establishments were subjected to
challenge before the learned STAT. The learned counsel for the
respondent/assessee before the STAT had produced the xerox
copy of Form G2 Certificate issued under Section 5B of the
APGST Act and the CST Act and found that these certificates to
have been genuinely issued by the authorities under the APGST
Act. The Tribunal also found that in the light of these documents
being filed and which were scrutinized by the Appellate Tribunal,
it appears that the Commercial Tax Officer as also the Appellate
Deputy Commissioner have overlooked this fact while refusing
exemption in respect of the 'C' forms issued.
6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there does
not seem to be any quarrel so far as the respondent/assessee
having produced the documents so far as Form G2 Certificate
issued under Section 5B and the fact that the said certificates to
have been issued by the authorities under the APGST Act and
CST Act as either dealer or proprietor and the two firms being one
and the same. In the said circumstances, where there is not much
material available for dispute left with the Department, we do not
find the order passed by the Tribunal, which has been passed after
scrutinizing the documents available on record in the course of the
appeal, to be either erroneous or bad in law. Therefore, we are of
the considered opinion that the present tax revision case, being
devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected,
upholding the order passed by the learned STAT.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
25.08.2025
Lrkm/Ggd
