1 APHC010186822010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION Nos.8754 & 8798 of 2010 [3543] M/s Prakasa Spectro Cast Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Ct 2 Others and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR DATE : 20th August 2026 Present : Advocate for Petitioner: VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP Nos.8754 & 8798 OF 2010 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) 1. As the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner was a registered dealer under APGST Act, 1957 and CST Act, 1956. The Commissioner of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded Tax Deferment for a period of 14 years with effect from 07.04.1996 to 06.04.2010 on manufacturing products of “Sphiroidal Graphits Iron Castings- Alloy Steel Castings” vide final eligibility certificate dt.15.11.1996 under Target 2000 Scheme, providing incentives for setting up of new industries in the State of Andhra Pradesh through G.O.Ms.No.108 Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dt.20.05.1996. 3. The petitioner was claiming deferment based on the final eligibility certificate in selling Alloy Steel Castings. The 1st respondent by proceedings dt.17.02.1998 allowed the petitioner 3 to avail deferment for an amount of Rs.1,75,61,050/- during the period mentioned in the said certificate. 4. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent completed the assessment in relation to the period 2004-2005 under APGST and CST Acts as against the petitioner by granting deferment of tax. However, the 1st respondent by exercising revisional power under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act and CST Act, issued show cause notices dt.30.10.2009 proposing to withdraw the deferment of tax of Rs.4,80,234/- and Rs.7,93,886/- granted by the 1st respondent. 5. The petitioner filed objections to the said show cause notices on 17.11.2009. Upon considering the objections of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent by impugned orders dt.17.02.2010 revised the order of the 1st respondent by withdrawing the deferment granted to the petitioner. Questioning the said orders, the present writ petitions are filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted Tax Deferment in favour of the petitioner for a period of 14 years and in accordance with the same, the petitioner postponed the payment of tax. He would 4 further submit that while exercising the power of revision, the 2nd respondent without properly appreciating the final eligibility certificate and by misinterpreting, came to the conclusion that GS- Finished Machinery Goods and CI-Finished Machinery Goods are not covered under the final eligibility certificate dt.15.11.1996, thereby the deferment was withdrawn. He would further submit that there is no jurisdiction to the 2nd respondent to pass the order under challenge. 7. On the other hand, Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would submit that, the tax deferment was granted for the goods “Sphiroidal Graphits Iron Castings-Alloy Steel Castings-2400 MTPA”, whereas in the case on hand, the petitioner had claimed deferment for the goods GS-Finished Machinery Goods and CI-Finished Machinery Goods. He would further submit that when no deferment was granted as against these goods, the 2nd respondent rightly exercised the power of revision and the deferment was withdrawn, insofar as these goods are concerned. 8. We have heard the submissions made by both the counsel and perused the material available on record. 5 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, the deferment claimed by the petitioner as against the goods i.e., GS-Finished Machinery Goods and CI-Finished Machinery Goods were not mentioned in the final eligibility certificate dt.15.11.1996. Though, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods mentioned in the final eligibility certificate and GS-Finished Machinery Goods and CI-Finished Machinery Goods are the same, we are not in agreement with the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as, a perusal of the invoices filed along with the writ petition would show otherwise. 10. Be that as it may, in the case on hand, the petitioner was granted deferment of tax from 07.04.1996 to 06.04.2010, i.e., for a period of 14 years. The period of deferment was admittedly ended long ago. In such circumstances, it is needless to mention the petitioner has to pay the tax as determined by the 2nd respondent. 11. Irrespective of the fact, whether the petitioner is entitled to deferment in respect of goods CS-Finished Machinery Goods and CI-Finished Machinery Goods, after completion of the 6 period of deferment (after 06.04.2010), admittedly the petitioner has to pay the tax in dispute. The same is also not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. 12. In view of the above, while upholding the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is directed to pay the tax dues as per the impugned order, in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 20.08.2026 DR 7 25 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP Nos.8754 & 8798 of 2010 Date 20.08.2026 U DR