1 APHC010183842006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA TAX REVISION CASE NO: 27/2006 Between: 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT, REP. BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT D.NO.5-4-404 TO 408 NAMPALLY, AP, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S THE CONCRETE PRODUCTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS CO KONDAPALLI, M/S The Concrete Products and Constructions Co. Railway Station Road, Kondapalli.- 521 228 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DANTU SRINIVAS( SPL SC FOR CT) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA TAX REVISION CASE NO: 27/2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Hari Haranadha Sarma) Heard Sri Dantu Srinivas, learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax and Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent -M/s.Concrete Products & Construction Company are manufacturers of Pre Stressed Railway Sleeper under the assessee on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Nandigama. 3. The Commercial Tax Officer has finalized the assessment for the year 1996-97 under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Commercial Tax officer imposed tax, assessing with the turnovers of Rs.5,47,09,790-00 (G.T.O.), Rs.1,52,47,710-00 (E.T.O.) and Rs.3,94,62,080-00 (N.T.O.), relating to interstate sales of sleepers, as local sales. On perusal of the assessment record, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada No.1 Division has noticed that the appellants have claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs.1,05,10,940/- and the same was allowed by the assessing authority erroneously, thereby taken up the 3 revision of the order of the assessing authority treating the turnover of Rs.1,05,10,940/- as sales of railway sleepers effected within the State. 4. Aggrieved by the revision order, dated 19.02.1999 of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, the respondent filed TA.No.696 of 1999 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 5. The Appellate Tribunal framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the turnover of Rs.1,05,10,940/- to be treated as inter-State sales of Sleepers or not? 6. The appellate Tribunal held that these transactions were inter-State sales falling under Section 3A of the CST Act and set aside the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). 7. Upon the above findings, the appeal of the respondent was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 08.02.2006. 8. Challenging the said order, present Revision has been filed. 9. The questions of law require consideration in this revision are as under: “1. Whether the orders of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner are sustainable? 2. Whether the STAT justified in allowing the appeal by setting aside the revisional orders made by the Deputy Commissioner and restoring the orders of CTO?” 4 10. Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the respondent submits that on point of the Appellate Tribunal’s Judgment, the matter is covered by the judgments of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in TREVC Nos.31 of 2006 wherein, after referring the observation made in V.S.Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and TRC.Nos.81 and 88 of 2003, dated 12.10.2022, at para No.17, it was held as follows:- “17. The Appellate Tribunal has clearly recorded that “in this appeal, it is clear that the contract entered into by the Railways with the appellants establish that an agreement of sale has come into existence for dispatch of goods from Kondapalli to outside the station. The very agreement occasioned movement of goods from Andhra Pradesh to other States. Catena of Supreme Court decisions also laid down that it is immaterial whether sale is completed within the State or not, but, what is important is that a transaction to be considered as inter-State sale, the goods must move from one State to another in pursuance of sale or in pursuance of agreement of sale as laid down under Section 3 of CST Act.” 11. Learned Special Standing Counsel submits that there is no challenge to the aforesaid finding that the goods moved from Andhra Pradesh to other states pursuant to the agreement. 12. After arguing on some length, learned Standing Counsel submits that the issue is covered by the judgment in the cases of V.S. Engineering (P) Ltd.’s case (supra) and TRC.Nos.81 and 88 of 2003 (supra). 1 2014 Vol.68 VST 87 5 13. With regard to covered nature of the matter, learned counsel on both sides, fairly conceded that the matter is covered across the bench. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances and covered nature of the matter, this Tax Revision Petition fails and liable to be dismissed. Points framed are answered accordingly, against the revision petitioner. 14. In the result, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated: 21.08.2025 Pnr 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA TAX REVISION CASE NO: 27/2006 Dt.21.08.2025 Pnr