THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION CASE No.109 of 2009

31.12.2025 Between:

M/s.Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited.

…Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION CASE NO.109 OF 2009

ORDER

Heard Sri S.R.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for STAT, appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

This Tax Revision Case is filed under Section 22 of the APGST Act, 1957 (repealed by APVAT Act, 2005 read with Section 80 of the APVAT Act, 2005) aggrieved by the order, dated 11.03.2008, in T.A.No.785 of 2000 passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The petitioner - M/s. Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It was also registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and after its repeal and substitution by the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. It is carried on its operations of selling and execution of Works Contracts in Andhra Pradesh as well as in other States. It has its Head Office in Mumbai and it has been registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is stated that during the year 1995-96, the Company filed its returns and paid the taxes due, thereafter it was finally assessed by the Assessing Authority vide Assessment No.GI No.1278/95-

96/APGST, dated 10.02.1999 on the following turnovers:

G.T.O : Rs.2,54,29,970/- E.T.O : Rs. 96,86,994/- N.T.O : Rs.1,57,42,976 /-

3. Aggrieved by the Assessing Authority order, the Revisional Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, revised the Assessment under Section 20 (2) of the APGST Act. The Revisional Authority upon revision enhanced the assessment as shown below:

G.T.O : Rs.7,53,76,208 E.T.O : Rs.2,54,68,509 N.T.O : Rs.4,99,07,699

4. In addition to enhancement of the turnover as shown above, the Revisional Authority forfeited an amount of Rs.41,213/- on the ground that it constitutes excess tax collections. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the petitioner-company filed an appeal under Section 21 of the APGST Act before the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Hyderabad. The STAT heard the matter on 31.01.2008 and partly allowed the appeal and partly dismissed the appeal against forfeiture of Rs.41,213/-. Further, with regard to enhancement of turnover, the learned Tribunal accepted and recorded the fact that the goods required for setting up of ‘Seawater Magnesium Plant’ are manufactured to the specifications of the purchaser i.e., M/s. Birla Perilcase, Visakhapatnam. however, the learned Tribunal held the transaction as ‘deemed sale’ and upheld the revision and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

5. It is stated that the learned Tribunal overlooked the evidentiary weight of legal representatives, invoices and ‘C’ declaration form issued by M/s. Birla Perilcase which establish the fact that the custom made goods moved from Bombay. It is stated that the petitioner’s company head office has entered into distinct sale contracts under which it agreed to sell materials. The petitioner’s Head Office effected inter-State Sales to M/s. Birla Perilcase, Visakhapatnam and latter issued ‘C’ declaration forms to Mumbai Office of the petitioner-company. The petitioner’s company has to be assess to tax on the value of the said materials in the State of Maharashtra under the CST Act, 1956, but the learned Tribunal ignored the above facts and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Tax Revision Case is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for setting up of ‘Sea Water magnesia Plant’ various parts required according to the specifications of the purchasers i.e., M/s. Birla Perilcase. Thus the parts are manufactured according to the specifi