IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION CASE No.214 of 2010 Date: 02.02.2026 Between M/s. Ramakrishna Filling Station …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent

O R D E R:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

Heard Mr.Tarun Chadha, learned counsel representing Mr. S.Dwaraknath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.

2. This Tax Revision Case is filed under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (repealed by APVAT Act, 2005 read with Section 80 of the APVAT Act, 2005) assailing the impugned order, dated 04.11.2009 passed in T.A.No.953 of 2005 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (herein referred as ‘the Tribunal’).

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present revision are that the petitioner/assessee is a dealer engaged in the business of sale of petroleum product and has been in the business since, 1993. The petitioner purchases petrol, diesel and lubricants from oil companies and sell the same within the State. The petitioner alleged that the liability to tax is discharged at the point of sale by the oil company and hence there is no liability to tax in the hands of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the petitioner is required to file statutory returns under the APGST and CST Act under which it is registered on or before 20th of the succeeding months for the month of April to February and for the month of March, by 7^th of April under Section 13 read with Rule 17 of the APGST Rules.

4. The Commercial Tax Officer, Peddapally while assessing the tax for the months of April to August, 2003 found that petitioner has not filed A2 returns under the APGST Act as required under Section 13 read with Rule 17 of the APGST Rules, hence issued notice proposing to levy penalty of Rs.76,400/- for 764 days i.e., 100 per day. However, the petitioner could not file objection and the penalty was levied by the Commercial Tax officer on

20.12.2003 as above.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal on the ground that there is no sufficient or opportunity for personal hearing was given before passing the Penalty order. The Appellate Authority after hearing both the parties has dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 31.03.2005 on the ground that penalty under Section 13-A is mandatory and the Commercial Tax officer has rightly levied penalty for the belated filing of the returns.

Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.953 of 2005 and the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 04.11.2009 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner did not file any objection to the penalty notice which deemed that the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing before levying penalty, therefore the learned Tribunal confirmed the order passed by Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.

6. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the liability to tax is discharged at the point of sale by the oil company and hence there is no liability to pay the tax in the hands of the petitioner and the penalty under Section 13-A of the APGST and CST Act will not applicable in the petitioner’s case. It is further contended that the penalty under Section 13-A is not mandatory and in case of bonafide mistake, no penalties can be levied and the penalty has to be exercised sparingly in appropriate case, even so, the quantum of penalty @Rs.100/- per day which is the maximum fixed by the Assessing Authority under Section 13-A and the respondent ought not to have fixed the maximum penalty. Further, contended that the learned Tribunal, without considering the above sai