##PAGE1##

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.287 of 2009

Date: 31.12.2025

Between:

M/s.SAE (India) Limited,

Ghnapur Station, Kazipet,

Warangal District, presently known as KEC

International Ltd., rep.by Dy.General Manager,

Commercial.

… Petitioner

And

State of Andhra Pradesh

Rep.by its State Representative

Before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Nampally, Hyderabad.

…Respondent

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

Heard Mr.Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel

representing Mr.S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner

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

representing learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for

the respondent and perused the record.

2. The present Tax Revision Case is preferred by the Assessee

under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,

2

1957 (for short” the APGST Act”). The challenge is to the order

passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”),

Hyderabad in T.A.No.1675 of 2004, dated 03.08.2009.

3. Vide the impugned order, learned Tribunal has dismissed the

appeal preferred by the Assessee and in the process, the Tribunal

has affirmed the order passed by the revisional authority i.e. the

Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, dated 20.05.2004.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner-Assessee

while assailing the order contended that the order passed by the

revisional authority is as such barred by limitation prescribed under

the APGST Act and ought to have been set aside/quashed by the

Tribunal. It was also contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the Tribunal had wrongly recorded the petitioner to

have waived their ground of challenging the revisional authority’s

order on the aspect of jurisdiction and limitation. However, infact,

no such contention was raised or made on behalf of the petitioner

waiving the ground of jurisdiction and limitation. He contends that

since the Tribunal does not have the power to review its own order,

he had no other remedy except to raise the said ground in the

instant Tax Revision Case. To further substantiate his argument,

3

he submits that the aspect of jurisdiction and limitation could be

found very well in the written submissions that the petitioner had

submitted before the Tribunal which itself would go to show that

they were contesting the revisional authority’s order on the ground

of limitation as well and that the observations made by the Tribunal

so far as waiving of submission made by the petitioner’s side

before the Tribunal of waiving the ground of limitation to be an

erroneous one.

5. So far as the relevant dates are concerned, the Assessing

Officer had passed the Assessment order on 31.03.2000 which was

served upon the Assessee-petitioner on 23.05.2000 in terms of the

period of limitation prescribed under Section 20(3) of the APGST

Act. The limitation would start from 23.05.2000 and comes to an

end on 22.05.2004. The revisional authority has passed the order

showing the order to have been dated 20.05.2004. However, the

authority who has signed the order has put the date beneath the

order which on the bare perusal from the naked eyes by the Bench

appears to be either 29.05.2004 or 23.05.2004 and either of the

dates would be beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

Moreover, the said order was infact served upon the petitioner on

4

an inordinately delayed as such on 16.09.2004. There does not

seem to be any material available on record to show that the order

infact was passed by the revisonal authority on 20.05.2004 itself,

it was immediately dispatched also to the petitioner. The fact that

there is no material available to show the signing of the revisonal

authority on 20.05.2004 and dispatching of the order to the

petitioner immediately this fact forces this Bench to draw an

adverse inference of the order likely to be ante dated order with

20.05.2004 being a