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 No.229 of 2010 Date:23.02.2026 Between:

M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad.

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

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

Heard Mr.Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondent.

Perused the record.

2. The challenge in the Tax Revision Case is to the order dated 02.12.2009 passed in T.A.No.1552 of 2004 by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (hereinafter, referred as ‘Tribunal’), respectively.

3. Vide order dated 02.12.2009, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the same was barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( for short “ the APGST Act.”).

4. According to the petitioner, the period of assessment involved in the Tax Revision Case is that of 1998-1999, and under the statute, the period within which the order of assessment ought to have been passed was 31.03.2002. However, in the instant case, the impugned order of assessment is one which was projected to have been passed on 30.03.2002, though the actual service of the order effected upon the petitioner-assessee was only on 09.05.2002.

5. 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 the Tax Revision petition. 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 30.03.2002 or not and if at all if it was passed on 30.03.2002, 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 09.05.2002.

6. 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.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State opposing the tax revision case submits that from the pleadings, admittedly the period of limitation was up till 31.03.2002 and the impugned assessment order also having been passed on 30.03.2002. 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 have been abbreviated order so as to circumvent the aspect of limitation.

8. Having heard the contentions on either side and on perusal of record, it is pertinent to take note of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Sri Venkata Sai Ram Traders v. S.R.before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad