HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ********

TAX REVISION CASE NO.55 OF 2002 Between :

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the State Representative before STAT, Nampally, A.P., Hyderabad.

…. Petitioner and M/s.Stypack (P) Limited, Cherlapally.

…. Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 24.09.2025 HON’BNLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

__________________________________

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J * HON’BNLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO + TAX REVISION CASE NO.55 OF 2002 % 24.09.2025 Between:

# The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the State Representative before STAT, Nampally, A.P., Hyderabad.

…. Petitioner and $ M/s.Stypack (P) Limited, Cherlapally.

…. Respondent !Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for petitioner/Revenue Counsel for the Respondent : --

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: (1993) 89 STC 473

1989 (8) APSTJ 148 MANU/AP/1360/2001 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE NO.55 OF 2002 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)

The above Tax Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2000 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (STAT) in T.A.No.793/96, setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad (Rural) Division in Appeal No.R/174/94-95 dated 04.03.1996.

2. The main challenge is made in the above revision is, “Whether the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.574 Revenue, dated 09.06.1987 passed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 (for short, Act) granted exemption to all dealers in respect of inter-state sales under Section 8(2A) of CST Act, 1956.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee are dealers on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Sarrornagar and engaged in business of manufacturing of Polysterine Plastic Granuals and was assessed for the assessment year 1991-92 and was denied exemption for the said plastic granules under the said G.O.Ms.No.574 Revenue, dated 09.06.1987. The said orders were confirmed by Appellant Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad in Appeal No.R/174/94-95, dated 04.03.1996. On appeal the STAT has passed the impugned order under appeal holding out that the respondent/assessee is entitled to set off inter-state sales tax paid under CST Act in pursuance of GOMs.No.574 Revenue, dated 09.06.1987.

4. The main contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader (Taxes) is that G.O.Ms.No.574 dated 09.06.1987 is not general in nature and that it is conditional. If the conditions mentioned in trade are fulfilled, only then the assessee can avail the benefit out of the same. It is further contended that the STAT under erroneous view and facts has set-aside the well considered judgments of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and contended that the assessee is not entitled to be set-off for the amount paid under CST Act in respect of inter-state sales.

5. Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for petitioner/revenue.

6. On a perusal of the orders passed by the STAT, the STAT has allowed the appeal by placing reliance on Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited v. State of Kerala and others1, wherein it was held that exemptions granted under a notification under State law exempting turnover of sales of Newsprint by plant in the State for two years from the date of starting of production, the exemption is available for the inter-state sales also, as the said notification was general in nature. A similar view was earlier also taken in M/s. Vinodsolvent Extracts Private Limited v. The State of A.P.,2 when the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.930 dated 28.0