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) 192

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.VINOD KUMAR, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
M/s Cement Cirporation Of India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The Stat State Of AP Hyd - Respondent
TREVC. Nos. 122, 124, 125 & 126 Of 2004
Decided On : 28-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S KRISHNA MURTHY
For the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The court affirmed that original C-Declaration Forms are necessary to claim concessional tax rates, rejecting claims based on photocopies, and upheld tax liability on packing materials as per applicable regulations.

Headnote:(A) CST Act, 1956 - Section 6 and Section 8(4) - APGST Act, 1957 - Section 6C - Tax revision cases concerning concessional tax rates on interstate sales - The revision petitioner, a government undertaking, was denied concessional tax rates for supplies made without original C-Declaration Forms, with the Tribunal ruling that certified copies do not satisfy statutory requirements. The Tribunal's application of the Apex Court's ratio led to the dismissal of claims concerning HDPE woven sacks being taxed equivalently to cement. (Paras 18, 21, 28)

(B) Taxation - Requirement of original statutory forms - The necessity of original declaration forms to qualify for a concessional tax rate under the CST Act was emphasized, invalidating any claims based on photocopies. The court supported the Tribunal's finding that certified Xerox copies do not meet the legal standards. (Paras 19, 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a government cement supplier appealing the taxation orders that revoked tax benefits on interstate sales, claiming compliance with tax regulations based on the submission of C-Declaration forms in Xerox form. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the rejection of claims for concessional tax rates due to the lack of original C-Declaration Forms and validated the Tribunal's reasoning and application of the law concerning packaging materials. (Paras 24, 25, 28)

Issues: The main issues were the validity of Xerox copies of C-Declaration Forms for tax benefits and the tax implications on HDPE woven sacks used for cement. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory requirements necessitate original forms for tax concessions; the findings of the revisional authority regarding the validity of evidence submitted were factual and not subject to legal questioning in revision. (Paras 22, 28)

Result: The revision petitioner’s claims were dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of tax revision cases and petitioner status. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. details of the cement supply and tax disputes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. facts surrounding the tax assessment and the appellant's claims. (Para 9)
4. tribunal's findings on tax applicability. (Para 10 , 11)
5. appellant’s arguments on the validity of the c-declaration forms. (Para 13)
6. petitioner's arguments on tax rate issues. (Para 14 , 15)
7. court's observations on cst act requirements. (Para 16 , 18 , 20)
8. court's reasoning on the validity of c-declaration forms. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
9. application of legal tests regarding hdpe woven sacks. (Para 24 , 27 , 28)
10. application of legal principles regarding sales tax and documentation. (Para 26)
11. final orders and dismissal of cases. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

ORDER :

(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)

Since the revision petitioner and the lis involved in all these revision cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. These Tax Revision Case are directed against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), passed under the provisions of CST Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). The case details are as follows:

TREVC. No.Date of order of TribunalAppeal No. before the TribunalAssessment Year
122/200415.09.2000TA.No.1019/19961988-89
124/200418.09.2000TA.No.1020/19961990-91
125/200404.10.2000TA.No.1022/19961992-93
126/200422.09.2000TA.No.1021/19961991-92

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State, in all the revisions, and perused the record.

4. The case of the revision petitioner is that it is a Government of India undertaking, manufacturing cement at its plant in Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, and is registered on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Since the issue involved in all the revisions is one and the same, the discussion is made in relation to TREVC.No.125 of 2004.

TREVC.No.125 of 2004

6. The revision petitioner contends that during the assessment year 1992-93, it had received an order for supply of cement from Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore; that in order to comply with the aforesaid order, it had supplied the cement from its units situated at Yerraguntla of Cuddapah District and Tandur of Ranga Reddy District; that against the aforesaid supplies made by the revision petitioner from its aforementioned units, the recipient viz., Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore, had issued (03) C-Declaration Forms covering the supplies made by it from both the units; that the revision petitioner had submitted all the 3 C- Declaration Forms to its Assessing Authority at Yerraguntla and obtained certificate covering the supplies made from its Tandur Unit included in the C-Declaration forms submitted by the revision petitioner’s Yerraguntla Unit along with certified Xerox copies of all the C-Declaration forms; and that on the revision petitioner filing the aforesaid declarations, the Assessing Authority had granted the benefit of concessional rate of tax covering supplies made from Tandur Unit.

7. The petitioner further contends that the revisional authority in exercise of revisional powers, had revised the order of assessment, whereby the benefit of concessional rate of tax as extended on the basis of the Xerox copies of C-Declaration forms as certified by the Assessing Authority of the petitioner’s unit at Yerraguntla, was withdrawn and the turnover relating to interstate sales of cement to the tune of Rs.1,09,00,131/- was assessed to tax at higher rate, as not covered by declaration forms.

8. The revisional authority also further levied tax on HDPE woven sacks, in which the cement is packed and sold by the revision petitioner at the rate of tax applicable to cement.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner herein had filed appeal before the Tribunal vide TA.No.1022/1996.

10. The Tribu

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