IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8191-8193 OF 2011

M/S HEMADRI ENTERPRISES

.....Appellant(s)

Vs.

STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

.....Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8194 OF 2011

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8195 OF 2011

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8196-8199 OF 2011

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8203 OF 2011

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8204-8206 OF 2011

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6614 OF 2011

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6615 OF 2012

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6616 OF 2012

O R D E R

The issue agitated in these appeals is whether under

the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act,

2005(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the appellant is

1

Digitally signed by

NEETA SAPRA

Date: 2023.03.27

17:40:26 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

entitled to input tax credit in respect of the transaction of

purchase of used liquor recycled bottles which had suffered

tax earlier.

The appellant is a registered dealer under the Act; it

buys used beer/liquor bottles from hawkers and unregistered

dealers and sells them to breweries and distilleries after

cleaning them. It claimed input tax credit which was denied

by the assessing officer. In some other proceedings, it

sought an advance ruling; the authority ruled in its favour.

In assessments which had been completed the revenue

held that input tax credit was inadmissible; the tribunal

upset assessment orders, and the orders of the advance ruling

authority. The revenue went in revision against the order of

the Tribunal, which had set aside the ruling of the advance

authority. The High Court in its judgment “Sree Manasa

Enterprises & Ors. vs. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.”

[Manu/AP/0452/2009] held that the appellant was dis-entitled

to input credit because a composite duty/tax of 70% had been

levied on the bottles which contained the beer/liquor. The

revenue had contended that the input credit was inadmissible

primarily because the recycled bottles were sourced from

unregistered dealers and hawkers and, therefore, did not

confirm to the provision of the A.P. VAT Act and Rules

(regulating admissibility of input credit) inasmuch as

invoices were unavailable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also

having considered the provisions of the A.P. VAT Act, this

2

Court is of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the

impugned judgments of the High Court which its ruling in

“Sree Manasa Enterprises” followed.

The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

...................J.

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

....................J.

(DIPANKAR DATTA)

New Delhi;

March 22, 2023.

3

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 8191-8193/2011

M/S HEMADRI ENTERPRISES Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No. 8194/2011 (XII-A)

C.A. No. 8195/2011 (XII-A)

C.A. No. 8196-8199/2011 (XII-A)

C.A. No. 8203/2011 (XII-A)

C.A. No. 8204-8206/2011 (XII-A)

C.A. No. 6614/2012 (XII-A)

C.A. No. 6615/2012 (XII-A)

C.A. No. 6616/2012 (XII-A)

Date : 22-03-2023 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For Appellant(s) Dr. M.V.K Moorthy, Adv.

Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR

Mr. S. Nandakumar, Adv.

Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv.

Mr. Anand Murthi Rao, Adv.

Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR

Mr. C. Balakrishna, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR

Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR

M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR

4

Sriharsha Peechara, Adv.

Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhary, AOR

Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AO