IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE No.94 of 2010

Date: 15.12.2025

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rep.by the State Representative before STAT,

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

And

M/s.Raasi Cement Limited,

Mirayalaguda. …Respondent

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader

representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the petitioner and Mr.S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant is the Tax Revision Case filed by the petitioner-State under Section 22(1) read with Rule 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as “APGST Rules”) under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'APGST Act') challenging the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’),

decided on 16.09.2008.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had reversed the order of revisional authority dated 16.04.2002 in respect of the respondent-Assessee for the assessment year 1994-95. The learned Tribunal had reversed the order of the revisional authority only on the ground of revisional order been barred by limitation under Section 20 of the APGST Act.

4. Under Section 20 (3) of the APGST Act, the limitation prescribed for the revsional authority to revise the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer is four years from the date on which the order of the Commercial Tax Officer is served upon the Assessee. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Assessment order was passed on 27.03.1998. The said order was served upon the Assessee on 29.04.1998. Accordingly, the period of limitation for the revisional authority to revise the order from the date of order or from the date of service of order would have been either 26.03.2002 or 28.04.2002. In the instant case, the order of the revisional authority is dated 16.04.2002. However, the stand of the respondent-Assessee all along has been the order of revisional authority having not been issued on 16.04.2002 as has been claimed by the Department rather it would only served upon the respondent-Assessee on 11.09.2002. The case of the Assessee before the Tribunal itself was that either the order dated 16.04.2002 is ante dated order, if at all, if such an order has been passed, it was only dispatched to the Assessee, timely, it has been for the first time served only on 11.09.2002 and therefore, the effective date for counting the limitation would start from 11.09.2002 and under these circumstances, the order of the revisional authority has been rightly held to be barred by limitation by the learned Tribunal is the contention of the respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent- Assessee submits that recently there have been couple of orders have been passed by this very Bench on almost identical set of facts in WP.No.927 of 2008 and TREVC No.206 of 2009. Both of which having been decided on 25.11.2025 and 22.09.2025 respectively, wherein, under similar circumstances, this very Bench has held that order passed by the Tribunal without any sufficient materials to show of having dispatched the said order promptly immediately after the same was passed on 16.04.2002 and in the absence of no cogent materials being enclosed along with the instant Tax Revision Case also to substantiate their contention that the order of the revisional authority has been issued within the period of limitation, we are of the considered opinion that the instant Tax Revision Case also one which would stand squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Bench in the aforementioned WP.No.927 of 2008 and TREVC.No.206 of 2009 supra.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Tax Revision Case also fails and is accordingly dismissed.