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 CASE Nos.42 and 180 of 2010 Date:16.03.2026 Between:

M/s.Concorde Motors Limited, Presently known as M/s.Condorde Motors (India) Ltd.,)

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by State Representative Before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.

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

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

2. These are Tax Revision Cases are filed by the same assessee in respect of the different assessment years challenging the common order passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in batch of matters in TA.Nos.189, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194 of 2008. All of which could have been decided by common order dated 24.09.2009. Arising out of that common order, there is challenge made only in TA.Nos.194 and 192 of 2008 in respect of the assessment year 2003-2004 and 2002-2003 respectively.

3. The TREVC.No.42 of 2010 pertains to the assessment year 2003-2004 and TREVC No.180 of 2010 pertains to the assessment year 2002-2003 respectively.

4. The question of law which was raised and canvassed by the petitioner was the composite contract for repair/service of vehicles involving replacement of parts, where separate prices are charged for the labour/service and for cost of the part can be treated as an indivisible works contract or a divisible contract one for sale of spare parts and other for labour/service.

5. Today, when the matters are taken-up for hearing, learned counsel drew the attention of the Bench that in respect of the same assessee for the assessment year 2004-2005, the Tribunal itself had taken a view that the said transaction would be treated to be one come within the ambit of works contract and not contract of sale. The said order of Tribunal is said to have been gone unchallenged on the part of the Revenue and that same has been attained finality. The order so passed by the Tribunal is one in TA.No.252 of 2011 decided on 16.05.2018. It has also been brought to the notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that meanwhile, erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh itself issued Memo No.25157, dated 24.02.2009, in respect of supply of spare parts and oils etc., during servicing of vehicles and treating them under works contract. In para Nos.3 and 4 of the said memo, it is held as under:

“3. The Government have examined the issue and observed that intention of the Government was to levy and collect Taxes on transactions of supply of spare parts and oils during the course of servicing of vehicles, treating them as works contract and also in respect of transactions relating to supply of spare parts during warranty period to levy tax treating those transactions as sale, in view of the facts stated supra and accordingly orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.144, Revenue (CT.II) Dept., dt.11.02.2008 prospectively.

4. Therefore after careful examination of the matter the Government have decided to waive the demands raised retrospectively. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is therefore, requested to send proposal for waiver of demands, if any raised, with retrospective effect. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is also directed not to enforce collection of such demands raised.”

6. A reading of the aforesaid contents of operative part of the memo dated 24.02.2009 would make it evidently clear that by virtue of the said memo, the Government had principally decided to waive the demands raised and had also made the aforesaid memo applicable with retrospective effect. As such, the said memo would be applicable in the cause of petitioner in these two Tax Revision Cases also both in terms of memo passed by the Governm