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 W.P.No.4933 of 2026 Date:17.02.2026 Between:

M/s.Global Aluminium Private Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad.

… Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Commercial Taxes Department, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others.

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

Heard Mr.Shresth Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant is the Writ Petition which has been filed assailing the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the revisional authority-the 3^rd respondent herein.

3. The present writ petition seems to be the second round of litigation. The earlier round of litigation being WP.No.24339 of 2023, whereby, the revisonal authority’s order passed on 08.03.2023 was subjected to challenge. This Court considering the fact that the show-cause proceedings before passing of the revisonal order, is the one which was issued was during Covid-19 pandemic, could not be effectively served upon the petitioner treating it to be violative of principles of natural justice, this Court allowed the WP.No.24339 of 2023 vide its order dated 23.11.2023 remitting the matter back to the revisional authority to pass afresh order strictly in accordance with law after due scrutiny of the contents of the reply that petitioner would furnish. Subsequent to which, the petitioner was called for hearing before the authorities and after repeated opportunities being given, it has entered appearance with duly authorized representative and submitted its reply and it has also furnished certain documents in support of its contentions. Following which, the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 has been passed, which is subjected to challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order is one, which has been passed without proper application of mind and without proper scrutiny of the documents, which the petitioner has been relying upon and which have been produced before the third respondent after the remand was made by this High Court on earlier occasion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had categorically pleaded before the authorities that for the same period and in respect of the very same sale, under the provisions of Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short “the VAT Act”) they have been taxed at the rate of 5% and therefore, in terms of Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the authorities ought to have taxed the petitioner at similar rate of 5%. Instead, they had passed an order levying tax at the rate of 14.5%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding arrived at by the 3^rd respondent is not in fact based on any materials produced by the petitioner, but, was based upon the materials that the authorities have derived on perusal of the website of the petitioner, which is further much subsequent period. Whereas, infact the authorities had to verify the records of the relevant period for reaching to the conclusion arrived at.

5. It is further contended by the petitioner that the authorities have also gone on wrong directions presuming that the petitioner was claiming exemption in terms of C-forms that they are in their possession. Whereas, in fact, the petitioner was not claiming any benefits based on C-forms that they have, rather, they were only harping on the taxing to be done at the same rate under which they have been taxed under the VAT Act.

6. Upon perusal of the records, more particularly, perusal of the impugned order, the finding of the revisional authority is that the petitioner in fact have further processed the aluminum extrusions by anodizing the same and also by powder coating of the products and in the process, the go