The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal v. M/S.Suguna Motors Private Limited
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURAELE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TREVC NO: 123 OF 2010 Petition Under Section 22(1) READ WITH RULE 10 OF APGST RULES U/S. APGST ACT to revise the order dated 2O-11-2008 in TA No. 773 ot 2006 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ( CT) Warangal in Appeal No. 812612002-03 daled 24-10-2002 preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (CT ) LTU, Warangal Division, Warangal Dated 07-10-2006 in Asst. No 19630/1 999-2000 ( Penalty) Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the State Representative before STAT O/o. D. No.5-4-404 to 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND It//s. Suguna [Vlotors Private Limited, Hanumakonda, Warangal ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN, ASST. GOVT. PLEADER REPRESENTING SRI SWAROOP OORILILLA SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE TAX Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following ORDER :
.1-.
IN TIIE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OI.'I I]LANGANA A.I HYDERABAD THE IIONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE P.SA]\I I(OSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICI SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TREVC No.l23 OF 2010 21.01.2026 Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the State Representative before STAT D.No.5-4-404 ro 408, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, t{yderabad.
. . Petitioner AND M/s Suguna Motors Private Limited, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
. Respondent JUDGMENT: tper Hon ble Sri Justica P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, lear I :rl Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop O,t itilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the appellant and perused the record
(^) 2.
The instant is a tax revision case preforred by the State under Section 22(l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sale Tax Act, 1957 3.
The challenge is to the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') tn T.A.No.773 of 2006, decided on 20.11.2008.
4.
Vide the said order. tlie 'lribunal had reversed the order passed by the Revisional Authority, who in tum had set aside the order passed by the Appellatc Deputy Commissioner. 5.
The Tribunal, in the course ol scrutinizing the documents, pleadings and submissions put-forth by the parties, found that, in fact, there was no material submission of suppression of the actual tum over by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the Revisional Authority had reached to the conclusion of suppression of actual turnover only on the basis of oonsidering the contents of ,{2 retums filed, rvithout processing and scrutinizing the actual book of accounts reflecting the actual tumovers which included the so called tum over which was not reflected in the ,A.2 returns. The Tribunal found that once when in the actual book of accounts
the tum over which was missing in the A2 ret lns also was reflected, the authorities ought to have properlv rcrutinizecl the actual book of accounts and had that occurred. tl: initiation of penalty proceedings would not have been required urd, therefore, rvhile allowing the appeal reversed the order of b.e Revisional Authority 6.
Today, ',vhen the matter is taken up for I t ering, upon a specific query being put to the learned counsel all e,aring for the appellant/State as to whether it is correct or not so I't rrs the finding of the Tribunal on the book of accounts pe '1 r:ning to the respondent/assessee reflecting the actual tumover:;. ncluding the turnovers which were not part of the A.2 returr i, the learned counsel fairly conceded that there is no materi: available to hold the said finding of the Tribunal to be either inc rnect or false. Once when the categorical finding of fact is thzLt in the actual book of accounts the actual turnovers were alread r reported, then under no circumstances can it be said to be supprei ion of taxable tumover.
n 7 .
In the given factual matrix of the case, we do not find any strong case made out by the appellant/State to hold the finding of the'Iribunal to be either erroneous or contrary to law 8.
The tax revision case thus tails and is rejected answering the qucstion ol law holding that the Tribunal was, in fact, justified in allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the penalty proceedings initiated by the respondent and imposition ol penalty was, in fact, unsustainable ' fhere shall be ho order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER To, ellate Tribunal' Andhra Prade Hyderabad 1 . The Sales Tax APP
2. The Appellate DePu Warangal ty Commissioner (CT) Division, Warangal
3. The Asslstant Com Wa rang al missioner (CT ) LTU'
for the State Tax' High ecial Govt Pleader a at HYderabad RILILLA, SP Sri SWAROOP OO of Telangan Court for the State 5 Two CD CoPies \il,, V KUL/PSL
HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112026 -i- .: -.
,- t t'-lr.\t'
r "i'
l (J zu2 IE
JUDGMENT
)* r!
:t TREVC.No.123 of 2010 * * itlT REJECTING ]'HE TIIEVC WITHOUT COSTS \ 2 v