THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION CASE No.38 OF 2009 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.S am Koshy)

Heard Mr. S. Vijay Adithya, learned counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Chaitanya, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondent.

Perused the record.

2. The present is a Tax Revision Case preferred by the assessee under Section 22(1) of the APGST Act assailing the order dated 26.09.2008 passed in Tribunal Appeal No.473 of 2001 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as, ‘the Tribunal’).

3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal preferred by assessee against the revisional authority order dated 08.02.2021 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, Warangal.

4. The point for consideration for the Bench in this tax revision case is that whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding that sale transaction effected by petitioner from Arunachal Pradesh is not a sale falling under Section 3(a) or Section 3(b) of the of CST Act.

5. The facts of the case is that the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, under the unified state of Andhra Pradesh and now within the State of Telangana, wanted to purchase certain cane baskets. The petitioner assessee facilitated the said purchase from one of the dealers in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is relevant to mention at this juncture that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, dealers purchasing cane products were exempted from payment of sales tax as a part of incentive being given to the products made of cane. The petitioner herein placed orders with the dealer in Arunachal Pradesh and as was agreed upon, the dealer in Arunachal Pradesh was required directly to send the cane baskets to the destination i.e., Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

6. The Commercial Tax Officer, at the first instance, had decided the matter in favour of the assessee holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to pay CST as there was no direct sale between the parties i.e., the sale which has been effected upon was directly between the dealer in Arunachal Pradesh and the supply made was to the end user inducer i.e., Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The product was dispatched directly from Arunachal Pradesh and received directly at the Singareni Collieries premises.

7. Referring to the provisions under Section 6(2) of the CST Act, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warangal, revised the finding of the Assessing Officer allowing exemption on a turnover of Rs.9,90,830/-, treating the transaction the second inter-state sale during transit. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, revising the order of the Assessing Officer is dated 08.02.2001. The said order subjected to challenge before the Tribunal by the petitioner assessee and where the Tribunal has not accepted the contention of the petitioner and has rejected the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner took the Bench to the provisions of Section 3(a) and 3(b) of CST Act and also read it in comparison with Section 6(2) of the CST Act and tried to distinguish the provisions and emphatically contended that Section

6(2) of the CST Act, as a provision would not be made applicable in the factual matrix of the present case. According to the petitioner, Section 6(2) of the CST Act is a provision which could be attracted only in the event if there is any goods coming from another State or has been effected by transfer of documents or .. to such goods in the course of the movement of goods from one State to another and Section 6(2) of the CST Act would be applicable would be applicable only in the event of any sale being made while the goods are transported from one State to another.

9. According to the petitioner, it is the case where the claim of the petitioner o