SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 190

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.VINOD KUMAR, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
M/s. S.B.P.L. Infrastructure Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubille Hills Circle, - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.22510 and 22615 Of 2006
Decided On : 28-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VENKAT PRASAD UKKALAM
For the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX TG

Tax liability under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is affirmed when the petitioner fails to provide necessary exemption proof and does not comply with appeal preconditions.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 5-F and 19 - Tax assessment - Petitioner contended that it should not be liable for tax on disputed turnover as it did not execute a works contract, but rather constructed for itself - Court found that the petitioner was liable for tax under Section 5-F due to its failure to provide proof of exemption and non-compliance with the precondition of payment under Section 19 - The revised assessment order and rejection of appeal were upheld. (Paras 6, 51, 56)

(B) Tax Exemption - The petitioner claimed exemption under A.P. Tourism Policy, 1998, but failed to produce necessary certificates or proof of registration as a Tourism Unit - The court ruled that exemption claims were not substantiated and the petitioner remained liable for sales tax. (Paras 49, 56)

(C) Appeal Process - The court emphasized the necessity of complying with statutory requirements for appeal, specifically the payment of disputed tax, as a precondition for maintaining the appeal. (Paras 52, 56)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested revised assessment orders claiming it was not liable for tax on the basis that it acted as a builder for itself, not as a contractor. The assessment included a profit margin, which the petitioner argued was incorrect.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the tax assessment, confirming the petitioner’s liability under the Act, and dismissed the petitions due to lack of merit.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was liable for sales tax as a contractor and whether it was entitled to exemption under the Tourism Policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner’s construction activities constituted a works contract and that the necessary exemption certificates were not provided, thus affirming the tax liability.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to declare tax assessments illegal. (Para 22510)

ORDER :

(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)

W.P.No.22510 of 2006 is filed with the following prayers:

(a) Declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned/revised assessment order dated 4-2-2006 in proceedings Rc.No.1/3071/2003-04/APGST as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner is not exigible to tax on the disputed turnover under Works Contract since the petitioner has not transferred any property in goods in favour of any third party.

(b) Declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal for the assessment year 2003-2004 under the APGST Act by the impugned order dated 01-07- 2006 in proceedings AR Sl.No.P/261/2005 on the ground that no proof of payment was produced before him as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner need not deposit the 12.5% of the disputed since the petitioner was granted exemption for payment of Sales Tax being the recognized Special Tourism Project under the A.P. State Tourism Policy, 1998 and pass such other order or orders ….”

2. W.P.No.22615 of 2006 is filed with the following prayers:

(a) Declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned/revised assessment order dated 4-2-2006 in proceedings Rc.No.1/3071/2004-05/APGST as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner is not exigible to tax on the disputed turnover under Works Contract since the petitioner has not transferred any property in goods in favour of any third party.

(b) Declare the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act by the impugned order dated 01-07-2006 in proceedings AR Sl.No.P/262/2005 on the ground that no proof of payment was produced before him as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner need not deposit the 12.5% of the disputed since the petitioner was granted exemption for payment of Sales Tax being the recognized Special Tourism Project under the A.P. State Tourism Policy, 1998 and pass such other order or orders ….”

3. Since, the parties are one and the issue involved is same, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

4. The facts set out in W.P.No.22510 of 2006 are taken for consideration of these Writ Petitions.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record.

6. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petitions assailing the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the revised assessment order date 04-02-2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( for short ‘the Act’) by treating the petitioner has having executed works contract of construction and subjecting the purchases made by it by adding 15% profit as being illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, it had availed the remedy provided under Section 19 of the Act by approaching the 3rd respondent authority, and the 3rd respondent by order dated 01-07-2006 had rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax as pre-condition for admission of the appeal as provided under Section 19(1) of the Act.

8. Petitioner contends that originally, a Development Agreement dated 27-06-2001 was entered into by one Sri Gowrishanker Gupta and Smt.Sarita

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top