HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.43 OF 2010 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 Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant is the Tax Revision Case filed by the State under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, challenging the order passed by learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (for short “the Tribunal”) in T.A.No.1513 of 2004 decided on

03.08.2009.

3. Vide the said impugned order the Tribunal had reversed the order of the revisional authority dated 04.11.2003.

4. The facts relevant for deciding the issue are that the respondent is a manufacturer and dealer in Aluminum goods and articles. They have a branch at Yanam. During the course of business, they have transferred certain stocks of their branch at Yanam and informed that the said goods were supplied to the Indian Railways. The respondent-assessee herein has obtained Form-F declarations from their branch and claimed exemption of CST on the turnover of stock transfers to their branches at Yanam. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept these transactions as stock transfers and levied CST treating them as interstate sales. As such, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner upon due clarifications and examination of the documentary evidence adduced by the assessee held that the transactions in fact were not interstate sale but were indeed only stock transfers. However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner revised the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner by an ex parte proceedings. The assessee preferring an appeal before the learned Tribunal which stood allowed leading to the present revision by the State.

5. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the finding given by the Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, which, for ready reference being reproduced hereunder:

“ Heard both sides. We have seen that the impugned orders are exparte orders and the revision has been confirmed without issuing a speaking order. Simply on the basis that the appellant has failed to file any objections after seeking more than one adjournment it is construed that the appellant has no objections. In contrast, the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is a well reasoned order. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner has examined the documentary evidence presented by the appellant in the form of ‘F’ Forms, lorry receipts, delivery challans and way bills supporting the transactions of stock transfers effected to their branch at Yanam. After examination of the same, he came to the conclusion that the transactions have to be treated as branch transfers and not as interstate sales. The same documentary evidence was submitted before us also. We have also examined the same and find that first and fore-most the Railways themselves have placed an order specifying that the goods shall be delivered from the Yanam Branch of the appellant. Next we are convinced of the genuineness of the transactions on perusing the assessment orders issued by the Commercial Tax Department, Yanam. This shows that the appellant is not doing bill-trading from his Branch at Yanam but is a registered dealer and is being assessed to tax as per the turnovers indicated in his Books of Accounts. The sample delivery challans, stock transfer advices, invoices, way bills etc., have also been examined by us and F Forms submitted by the appellant have also been examined by us. On examination of the same, we are convinced by the appellants argument that what the appellant ha