THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.111 OF 2009 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a tax revision case preferred by the assessee assailing the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in T.A.No.195 of 2001.

3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim of the assessee.

4. The order of the Tribunal was subjected to challenge finally on two grounds; firstly, determining before the goods produced by the petitioner establishment is one which needs to be treated as electronic goods covered at Entry 38 of I Schedule or whether they are machinery goods falling under Entry 83 of I Schedule. The second question of law was pertaining to the invoices not supported by ‘C’ forms pertaining to an amount of Rs.10,85,47,685/-, which according to the authorities was liable to be taxed at higher rate on the ground the petitioner had not produced the ‘C’ forms and that they are treated as electronic goods.

5. So far as the first question of law, as to whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner-establishment be treated as electronic goods or the machinery goods is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the said question of law is no longer res integra for the reason that in respect of the petitioner-assessee itself, there have been decisions passed on this very issue. Recently, in TREVC.Nos.39, 40 and 41 of 2005, decided on 03.03.2005, it was categorically held that the goods manufactured by the petitioner-establishment would be machinery under the mechanical goods falling under Entry 83 of I Schedule of the APGST Act, further holding that it would not be electronic goods under Entry 38 of I Schedule. The said decision of this High Court was based upon an earlier decision and the said view was further reiterated in yet another TREVC.No.34 of 2004, decided on

28.05.2025, wherein, the earlier view of this High Court was endorsed.

6. In view of the aforesaid two batch of petitions being decided in favour of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the first question of law raised in this tax revision case also deserves to be and is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner-assessee holding that the goods manufactured by the petitioner-establishment are to be treated as mechanical goods falling under Entry 83 of the I Schedule of the APGST Act.

7. Now we come to the second question of law so far as the matters pertaining to the invoices non-supported with ‘C’ forms. The learned Tribunal as also the divisional authority had not accepted the contention of the petitioner on the sole ground of the petitioner having non-supportive invoices with ‘C’ forms. However, what is apparently evident from the materials placed before the Bench in the course of the hearing is that in spite of the revisional authority order dated 16.12.2000 and the appellate authority order dated 11.02.1998, after the matter was remanded back, the Commercial Tax Officer, in the course of passing fresh assessment order on 23.07.2003, while dealing with the declaration forms, held as under:

“5. C-Declaration Forms: Rs.12,60,82,417/-

The Assessee Company filed details of ‘C/D’ declaration forms along with Original Foils of ‘C/D’ declaration forms for a turnover of Rs.12,60,82,417/-. Verified the declaration forms with reference to the details and found that a turnover of Rs.12,02,62,168/- is eligible for concessional rate of tax @ 4%. As such, the turnover of Rs.12,02,62,168/- is now assessed to tax at concessional rate of 4%. The remaining turnover of Rs.58,20,249/- is not considered for concessional rate of 4%, in the absence of ‘C/D’ declaration forms”.

8. Today, when the matter