Telangana High Court
The State Of Ap, Rep.By State ... vs M/S Kesoram Cements, Basanthnagar, on 12 February, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
TAX REVISION CASE No.104 of 2008
ORDER:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Standing Counsel for
Commercial Tax appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bhaskar
Reddy Vemireddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The instant petition under Section 22(1) read with Rule 10 of the
APGST Act has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 31.10.2007 in T.A.No.840 of 2000 passed by the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the 'STAT').
3. The learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax after
arguing on admission pointed out the question of law as regards to
whether the STAT was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the
respondent herein on the ground that no contrary evidence is found.
4. However, perusal of the records would go to show that the
contention raised by the learned Special Standing Counsel for
Commercial Tax has been threadbare dealt with by the STAT in
paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of its judgment; which for ready reference is
reproduced herein under, viz.,
"9. Point (a): It is not anybody's case that M/s. R.K. Madhani
& Co., Bombay started business only with effect from 1-7-1994.
It is not in dispute that the said company in Bombay had
effective registration from 7-9-1991 having Registration No.MAH
1C/47805 (Central) dated 7-9-1991. It is also not in dispute that
the said party shifted its office from 68/70 CP Tank Road,
Mumbai to their own premises of Dadar, Mumbai. Hence, it
appears that M/s. R.K. Madhani & Co., had continuous
registration even with effect from 7-9-1991 and due to shifting of
office, new Registration Certificate was taken from 1-7-1994. In
our considered view the fact of obtaining new Registration
Certificate does not alter the fact of holding the registration
certificate anterior to it during which time the transactions took
place. It also appears that the buying dealer cannot issue 'C'
declarations from the old address after obtaining new
registration certificate from a new address. We are therefore
inclined to hold that the fact of fresh registration with effect from
1-7-1994 and issuing of 'C' form from the new address does not
alter the fact that the appellant had been registered since 7-9-
1991. The fact that the transactions took place between the
appellant and M/s. R.K. Madhani & Co., is also unalterable.
Strangely the reason recorded for rejecting the claim of the
appellant is as follows:
"The contention of the dealer is not considered M/s. R.K.
Madhani & Co. Mumbai have taken fresh R.C. on dated 1-
7-94 and as such the validity of 'C' form is only from the
date. Therefore the contention of the dealer is rejected and
the levy of proposed tax is confirmed."
10. The above reasoning in our considered view is
unsustainable in as much as the burden in revision lies on the
revisional authority. Once a contention is raised and fact
established, it is not open to the revisional authority to disbelieve
unless contrary evidence is found on enquiry. Since nothing is
gathered to rebut the contention of the appellant, the revision is
not legally sustainable in respect of Point (a). Held accordingly."
5. A perusal of the said finding given by the STAT reproduced in the
preceding paragraph by itself would go to show that the STAT has
extensively dealt with the objection raised by the petitioner and reached
to the said conclusion. Even in the course of arguments in the instant
case, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax has
not been able to show any material to point out any irregularity
committed by the STAT or the finding arrived at to be incorrect
factually.
6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substantial
question of law made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to
the impugned order passed by the STAT. The instant Tax Revision Case
thus fails and is accordingly rejected. No costs.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date: 12.02.2025
GSD
