APHC010307752023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3516] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY TAX REVISION CASE NO: 2/2023 Between: M/s.cosmic Power Systems (p) Ltd ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2 HBKM,J & HVN,J T.R.E.V.C.No.2 of 2023 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. Disha Chowdary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 2. This tax revision case arises against the order of the AP VAT Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in T.A No.47 of 2017 dated 08.02.2023 dismissing the appeal by the majority opinion of two members i.e., Chair Person and the Accountant member with the dissenting order of the 3rd Member/Departmental member, who remanded the appeal. 3. The petitioner’s company is engaging in manufacturing and selling of electrical goods viz. panel boards etc. by making purchases both from within the state and outside the state. Besides, the company is also engaged in carrying out electrical works and contract works both within the state and the outside the state. On being authorized by the DC (CT), Visakhapatnam, the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Audit), Visakhapatnam completed the assessment for the year 2010-11 under the CST Act vide proceedings dated 13.08.2012. The said assessing authority observed that upon issuance of the pre-assessment show cause notice dated 23.07.2012, the petitioner’s company filed its letter dated 25.07.2012 requesting 10 days time to file its objections and statutory forms, which they were expecting to receive from their purchasers. Even after availing the said time, the petitioner’s company did not file any objections or any statutory forms in respect of the proposed 3 HBKM,J & HVN,J T.R.E.V.C.No.2 of 2023 assessment. Hence it was construed that the petitioner’s company dealer has no objection for the same and as such the orders of assessment for confirmation was passed determining the following turnovers for the year 2010-11 under CST Act, 1956:- Inter-State sales of Elecl.goods (Panel boards): Rs.1,63,22,668-00 @ 2/102 Rs.3,11,324-00 (Covered by Form-C declarations) 2nd &subsequent sales of Elec.goods :Rs.141018248-00 @ 2% Rs.2820365-00 (Covered by Form-C & not covered by Form E-1) Total :Rs.15,73,40,916-00 Rs. 31,40,417-00 Total Tax due :Rs.31,40,417-00 Tax –paid :Rs. 3,84,786-00 Balance :Rs.27,55,632-00 5 Turnover covered by Form-C but not covered by Form E-1 10125126 30703836 61562161 38627125 Tax 202503 614077 1231243 772542 6 Turnover covered by Form-C U/Sec 3 (a) 494576 0 0 15828092 Tax 9698 0 0 310355 7 Turnover not covered by Form-C U/Sec 3 (a) 0 0 0 Tax 0 0 0 0 8 Total Turnover 10619702 30703836 61562161 54455217 Total Tax 212201 614077 1231243 1082897 1) Second & subsequent sales of Elec.goods (Panel boards) Rs.141018248-00 2) Inter-State sales of Elec.goods (Panel boards) Rs. 16322668-00 3) Total Rs.157340916-00 4 HBKM,J & HVN,J T.R.E.V.C.No.2 of 2023 4. The assessing authority found that for the turnover of Rs.14,10,18,248/- towards second and subsequent sales under Section 3 (b) of the CST Act, 1956 , it was covered by Form-C declarations only, but not covered by E-1 declarations. Hence, on the said turnover exemption was not allowed and it was proposed to tax at concessional rate of tax only. It was found that an amount of Rs.15,73,40,916/- is covered by Form-C declarations and as such that turnover was assessed to tax at concessional rate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakahapatnam deciding the appeal vide order dated 25.04.2015 and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for the purpose of consideration of 5 E-1 forms for an amount of Rs.1,10,56,958/- for the assessment year 2010-11 along with the direction to verify the original C- forms. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam dated 25.04.2015, the petitioner filed the T.A.No.47 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and contended that if sufficient time is given for production of E-1 forms for the balance turnover also, the petitioner would furnish the same before the assessing authority for consideration of the same in accordance with law for granting partial relief by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was aggrieved of the same as stated, the balance claim in the above said appeal before the Tribunal to consider the grounds of appeal and found that the appellant filed E-1 forms before the appellate authority, only for an amount of Rs.1,10,56,958/- for the corresponding sale turnover to be 5 HBKM,J & HVN,J T.R.E.V.C.No.2 of 2023 granted exemption of Rs.1,51,35,467/-. The appellate authority, considering the same, disposed the appeal by remanding to the Assessing Authority with a direction to verify the original forms for an amount of Rs.1,10,56,958/- only by assigning the sufficient reason. Whereas the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner/appellant therein for consideration of the remaining E-1 forms for the balance turnover on the ground that the same was not produced before the appellate authority and as such, the appellate authority only remanded the matter for the E-1 forms produced before it only. Hence, by majority, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/appellant therein. Whereas the dissenting member of the said tribunal, remanded the matter to consider E-1 forms only for the acceptance of turnover of Rs.1,32,48,335/-. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District Vs. Commercial Tax officer, Benz Circle, Vijayawada 1dated 26.10.2005 and in the matter of Rassi Cement Ltd. Vs. State of A.P2., dated 10.07.1998. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that they have produced all the E-1 forms before the assessing authority also in the year 2015 itself seeking exemption on the turnovers submitted before the said authority for the year 2010-11. 7. Since the law enables submission of these E-1 forms for verification with the C-forms submitted already to show sufficient cause to the satisfaction 1 (2007) 7 VST 730 (AP) 2 (1999) 113 STC 179 (AP) 6 HBKM,J & HVN,J T.R.E.V.C.No.2 of 2023 of the assessing authority by the petitioner/assessee, the matter is remanded to the assessing authority to consider the E-1 forms produced by the petitioner subject to showing sufficient cause by applying the relevant provisions of law for consideration of the same for the determination of the final assessment with the respect to the assessment year 2010-11. 8. Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 12.02.2025 PGT