AND TAX REVISION CASE Nos.124 and 136 of 2009

COMMON ORDER

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

Heard Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax appearing for the petitioner - State, and Mr. Dantu Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the ‘STAT’) in two Tax Appeals i.e. T.A.Nos.1132 of 2002 and 1133 of 2002, decided on 09.01.2009 by a common judgment, the present two Tax Revision Cases have been preferred by the petitioner - State.

the petitioner - State was that the STAT has erred in not appreciating the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), which had revised the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, at the first instance so far as granting exemption of turnover which was revised and rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (CT).

4. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax for the petitioner - State also was that the STAT erred in not properly appreciating the findings given by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) while reversing the order of the Commercial Tax Officer insofar as the transport charges incurred by the assessee is concerned. According to the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax for the petitioner - State, the transport charges incurred by the assessee were, in fact pre-sale expenditure, whereas according to the Commercial Tax Officer it was the post sale expenditure.

5. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the findings given by the STAT while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent herein. We find that the STAT having perused the entire record has found that there is no justification or cogent reasons available on record for the Deputy Commissioner (CT) while revising the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Further, a plain perusal of the findings given by the STAT in paragraph No.7 of its order would clearly spell out the details in this regard and, therefore, we do not find have made available any material to hold that the findings given in paragraph No.7 while reversing the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) to be either bad, illegal or contrary to the records available.

6. In the absence of any strong material made available on record, we do not find any strong case made out by the petitioner - State calling for an interference to the impugned orders passed by the STAT. The two Tax Revision Cases thus fail, and are accordingly, rejected.

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

P.SAM KOSHY, J NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J Date: 11.06.2025 GSD