THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA TRC. No. 208 of 2003 ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

This Tax Revision Case is filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dt.30.12.1995 in TA.No.462 of 1996, for the assessment year 1991-92 under the APGST Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Petitioner contends that it is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer(CTO), SD Road, Secunderabad; that on the CTO passing an order of assessment in its favour, the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, in exercise of its revisional power has revised the said order of assessment, whereby the revisional authority had held that the gross profit of 25% adopted by the assessing authority on the value of inter-state goods purchased to arrive at first sale turnover of the petitioner in the State to be incorrect estimation and in its place has adopted 75% to the gross profit purchase value for the year 1991-92.

4. Petitioner contends that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Punjagutta Division, adopting 75% as its profit, and also levying tax on packing material, and rate of tax, it had filed appeal before the Tribunal, vide TA.No.462 of 1996; that the Tribunal by order, dt.30.12.1995, while allowing the claim of the appellant with regard to the rate of tax, insofar as percentage of profit had held that the appellant did not dispute the figures adopted by the revisional authority in arriving at the taxable amount except addition of profit amount, and therefore addition of 75% as gross profit by the revisional authority is not incorrect; and that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tribunal to the extent it had confirmed the order of revisional authority with regard to gross profit, the petitioner-assessee had preferred the present revision before this Court.

5. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

6. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the 75% of profit adopted and applied by both the revisional authority and Tribunal are exorbitant and unsustainable, as the petitioner is required to meet various expenses relating to post-

sale like maintenance, services, etc., and if the said expenses are considered, the reasonable profit earned would be 25% only, the revisional authority as well as the Tribunal in their orders have categorically noted that the petitioner did not give any figures as to what amount it realized by way of sale in respect of items purchased by it within the State and outside the State.

7. The Tribunal while considering the contentions of the petitioner also noted that while the books of accounts of the petitioner showed the purchase materials being valued at Rs.4,04,94,495/-, the corresponding realization of sale to be in a sum of Rs.7,07,41,748/-.

8. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner did not dispute the sale value shown in its books or the figures adopted by the revisional authority while revising the order of assessing authority.

9. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the revisional authority erred in adding 75% gross profit to the purchase value to arrive at the sale value, since, the said value includes the post-sale activities, which the petitioner would be required to undertake, and such expenses are to be deducted to arrive at the reasonable profit margin, the Tribunal on the other hand had noted that the appellant has not been able to produce any calculation about what type of profit it had adopted in earlier years to claim that the addition of gross profit @ 75% to the purchase value by the revisional authority, to be high and incorrect.

10. In the absence of the petitioner establishing as to what is the percentage of