M/s. Sangeetha Sudha Mobile World vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

2026:APHC:22318

WRIT PETITION NOs: 15649, 15672, 15699, 15776, 16520, 22262, 24485, 24731, 26985, 27011, 33706 of 2018, 6129, 6130, 8186, 8204, 19514, 19534, 20971 of 2019, 1896 of 2020, 10859 and 18442 of 2022
W.P.No.15649 of 2018

Between:
1. M/S. SANGEETHA SUDHA MOBILE WORLD, ELURU REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI. V. SURESH BABU, S/O. LATE. RAMMOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE(CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. GUNTUR
2. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERII, ELURU CIRCLE, ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ELURU. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S)

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

The Court made the following Common Order:

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

Heard Sri M.V.J.K.Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

2. As all these writ petitions raised the same issues, they have been disposed of by way of this common order.

3. The petitioners are all manufacturers or dealers in Cell phones and Cell phone equipment. During the period 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, these petitioners had been taxed, under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the APVAT Act’) for the sale of such Cell phones and Cell phone equipments. The details of the assessment as well as the penalties in certain cases and appeals in certain cases are given herein below:

Sl. No	Writ Petition	Party name	Order Passed by	Assessment Years	Order Date
1	15649/2018	M/s Sangeeta Sudha Mobile World	Penalty	2011-12 to 2015-16	29.12.2016
2	15672/2018	M/s Sangeeta Sudha Mobile	VAT 305	2011-12 to 2015-16	25.02.2016
3	15669/2018	M/s lakshmi Communications	VAT 305	2014-15	03.09.2015
4	15776/2018	M/s Vanama Raju	VAT 305	2009-10 to 2010-11	12.05.2016
5.	16520/2018	M/s Sri Hari Hara Agencies	VAT 305	2012-13 to 2015-16	31.07.2017
6.	22262/2018	M/s Vasavi Agencies	Deputy Commissioner	2010-11 to 2012-13	18.01.2017
7.	24485/2018	M/s Hasith CellPlaza	Penalty appeal order	2009-10 to 2014-15	07.08.2017
8.	24731/2018	M/s Hasith CellPlaza	Appellate Joint Appeal Order	2010-11 to 2014-15	07.08.2017
9.	26985/2018	M/s Mobi Care	Penalty	2012-13 to 2016-17	31.10.2017
10.	27011/2018	M/s Mobi Care	VAT 305	2012-13 to 2016-17	16.09.2017
11.	33706/2018	2018M/s Fusion Voice	VAT 305	2013-14 to 2015-16	16.08.2016
12.	6129/2019	M/s Vivo Mobile India	VAT 305	2015-16 to 2016-17	30.03.2016
13.	6130/2019	M/s V.Dream Technolgies	VAT 305	2015-16 to 2016-17	30.03.2016
14.	8186/2019	M/s Vivo Mobile India	Penalty	2015-16 to 2016-17	30.03.2016
15.	8204/2019	M/s V.Dream Technologies	Penalty	2015-16 to 2016-17	07.05.2019
16.	19514/2019	M/s Radhkrishna Enterprises	VAT 305	2012-13 to 2015-16	21.11.2017
17.	19534/2019	M/s Radhakrishna Enterprises	Penalty	2012-13 to 2015-16	21.11.2017
18.	20971/2019	M/s Konkimalla Somayya	VAT 305	2013-14	09.09.2019
19.	1896/2020	M/s Fusion Voice Solutions	Penalty	2013-14 to 2015-16	30.12.2019
20.	10859/2022	M/s United Tele Links Limited	Appellate Deputy commissioner VAT 305	2016-17 Appeal order	25.03.2021
21.	18442/2022	M/s United Tele Links BLR Limited	Appellate Deputy commissioner VAT 305	2014-15 Appeal Order	30.07.2019
22.	16461/2018	M/s Hari Hari Agencies	Penalty	2012-13 to 2015-16	08.01.2018
23.	15641/2018	M/s Lakshmi Communications	Penalty	2014-15	21.09.2015
24.	22295/2018	M/s Singapore Plaza	Additional commissioner	2011-12 to 2014-15	04.05.2018

4. In all these cases, the goods which were sold, were Cell phones, Cell phone batteries and Cell phone battery chargers and head phones in some cases. All these good were put together and sold in one unit and a composite price was received for sale of these products. The assessing authorities as well as the Appellate authorities took the view that the sales, made by the petitioners, were sales of three separate goods namely Cell phones, Cell phone batteries and Cell phone chargers and in some cases head phones. On that basis, the authorities sought to levy the Value Added Tax, at different rates for these different products. The petitioners contended that all the said products, which were sold us one component and could not have been bifurcated into separate products and separate rate could not have been levied on the products.

5. As the authorities did not accept these contentions, the petitioners after having suffered orders of assessment, orders of penalty as well as the appellate orders and revisional orders have approached this Court, by way of the above writ petitions.

6. Before going into the contentions raised by either side, it would be nece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document