IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION CA SE Nos.241 & 242 of 2010 DATE OF ORDER : 12.02.2026 TAX REVISION CASE No.241 of 2010:

Between:

M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.

…Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its State Representative before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nampally, Hyderabad.

…Respondent COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Tarun Chadha, learned counsel representing Mr.Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax. Perused the record.

2. Since the matter pertains to the same assessee and as the question of law involved as well as the assessment year being the same, we proceed to decide both the tax revision cases by way of a common order.

3. The challenge in both the tax revision cases is to the orders dated 02.12.2009 passed in T.A.No.1607 of 2004 and T.A.No.1608 of 2004 by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (hereinafter, referred as ‘Tribunal’), respectively.

4. Vide order dated 02.12.2009, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground that they were barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of the APGST Act.

5. According to the petitioner, the period of assessment involved in both the tax revision petitions is that of 1999-2000, and under the statute, the period within which the order of assessment ought to have been passed was 31.03.2003. However, in the instant cases, the impugned orders of assessment are one which was projected to have been passed on 31.03.2003, though the actual service of the order effected upon the petitioner-assessee was only on 28.05.2003.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain reading of the order passed by the Tribunal itself would reveal that there is an admission of fact that there was a delay on the part of the Department in issuing with the order of assessment. However, since the duration of delay was just around two months time, the Tribunal did not interfere with the same and in the process, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-assessee, leading to filing of these two tax revision petitions. Learned counsel further submits that in the event if the Tribunal was to take the view that it has taken, what was necessary to be considered by the Tribunal was to call for the records and verify as to whether the order of assessment was in fact passed on 31.03.2003 or not and if at all if it was passed on 31.03.2003, what was the date the said order was dispatched to the petitioner-assessee. In the absence of such scrutiny or enquiry, the Tribunal could not have justified the action on the part of the respondent, even though admittedly the order of the Assessing Officer was served only on

28.05.2003.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in TREVC.No.233 of 2001 decided on 30.10.2014.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State opposing the tax revision cases submits that from the pleadings, admittedly the period of limitation was up till 31.03.2003 and the impugned assessment orders also having been passed on 31.03.2003. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to try for and raise the objection of the same being barred by limitation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further also tried to justify the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the period that took for the Department to serve upon the petitioner- assessee being too shorter period. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Department in serving the assessment order upon the petitioner-assessee, nor can it be presumed to