IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Tax Revision Case No.48 of 2009

and

Tax Revision Case No.230 of 2009

Date of Order : 28.11.2025

BETWEEN :

M/s.Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited

…Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh

… Respondent

The Court made the following :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Tax Revision Case No.48 of 2009 and Tax Revision Case No.230 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY Since the issue for consideration in these two Tax Revision Cases is one and the same and the parties therein are also same, we proceed to decide the Tax Revision Cases by way of this Common Order.

2. Tax Revision Case No.48 of 2009 and Tax Revision Case No.230 of 2009 are filed by the petitioner under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 praying the Court to revise the Common Order dated 06.10.2008 in T.A.No.1118 of 2002 and T.A.No.1119 of 2002 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the impugned common order’)

3. Heard Mr.S. Vijay Adithya, learned counsel representing Mr.P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr.Sai Akarsha, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Standing Counsel for the State Tax, for the respondents.

4. For convenience, the facts in Tax Revision Case are discussed hereunder.

5. The petitioner herein is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, and is engaged in the business of leasing computers. In the course of business, the petitioner was assessed to tax for the Assessment Year 1996-97 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APGST Act & CST Act’). The respective assessments were finalized by the Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh vide order dated 21.10.1999 in Assessment No.2880/96-97/APGST. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax), Abids Division, Hyderabad, i.e., the revisional authority, on scrutiny of the above assessment order, found that the assessing authority failed to levy 1% Turnover Tax under Section 5A of the Act; and accordingly, the revisional authority revised the assessment order passed by the assessing authority and levied tax @ 1% on the lease rentable turnover of Rs.74,19,575/- under Section

5-A of the APGST Act.

6. The whole issue involved in these two Tax Revision Cases is pertaining to levy of tax on lease rentable turnover.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Sections 5-A of the APGST Act, the turnover tax cannot be levied on rentals. Therefore, the petitioner objected to levying of tax on the turnover assessed by the revisional authority under Section 5-A of the Act particularly in the light of provisions of Section 5-A. He further contended that once the turnover tax was paid under Section 5-A, it cannot be levied on the turnover assessable under Section 5-E of the Act; therefore, the contention of petitioner was accepted by the assessing officer and the proposal to levy tax under Section 5-E stood dropped. However, the revisional authority, on scrutiny, issued a revisional show-cause notice to the assessee calling for explanation as to why the turnover tax should not be levied in terms of Section 5-E of the Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the revisional authority in the course of deciding the matter reached to the conclusion that Section 5-A of the Act is a general provision relatable to various turnovers, whereas Section 5-E was an independent and special charging section in respect of amount realized against any right to use goods which, in the instant case, was the lease transactions. He further contended that the revisional authority went on to decide the case by holding that where turnover tax under Section 5-A is leviable there is full