2026:APHC:23364 APHC010176452007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3529]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 36/2007 Between:

1. M /S.SRI SATYANARAYANA SPINNING MILLS LIMITED, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MR.M.GANGAIAH O/O.TANUKU - 534 215, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, rep by its State Representative before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal O/o.Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhaptnam.

...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2008(TREVCMP 9 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file revised memorandum of Tax Revision Case in Tax Revision Case No. 36 of 2007 Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner is a manufacturer of cotton yarn and was selling the same through its agents and branches situated in various other states, which was assessed to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as “CST Act”), for the year 1994-95. The petitioner sought stay of all taxes paid on diesel oil in excess of 4 paise produced by the petitioner, on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 09.05.1994, granted such right of setoff. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Authority, against which an appeal was filed. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner also refused to grant such setoff and the matter went before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench (here-in-after referred to as “STAT”).

2. In the STAT, the petitioner contended that the language of G.O.Ms.No.401, which granted the right of setoff was in a wider form and the language in this G.O. entitles the petitioner not only to deduct the said tax decided under the General Sales Tax Act but also under the CST Act. For this purpose, the petitioner sought to rely upon a subsequent G.O., bearing G.O.Ms.No.1019, dated 10.12.1996, to compare the language in G.O.Ms.No.1019, which restricted the right of setoff and the tax payable under the GST Act, while such a restriction was not available in the language of G.O.Ms.No.401. The Tribunal negatived this contention and held that the petitioner was not entitled to setoff the tax paid under the GST Act against the tax payable under the CST Act.

3. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Revision Case.

4. Heard Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondent-State.

5. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the levy of tax on intra-State sales tax is by virtue of APGST, which has been duly enacted by the State Legislature, while, the tax on inter-State sales tax is under the CST, which is enacted by the Parliament and the right of setoff granted by virtue of G.O., issued under Section 9 of the APGST Act would not extend to grant of right of setoff under the CST Act. This Court does not find any reason to express a different view in this regard.

6. Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:23.02.2026 MJA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 36/2007 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Date:23.02.2026 MJA