1 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.20807 of 2020 APHC010314302020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20807/2020 Between: M/s. Sangam Milk Producer C Mpany Limited, ...PETITIONER AND Joint Commissioner Ct Leal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri L. Chandra Obul Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 2. The petitioner is a Dairy which produces and sells pasteurized milk, milk products and milk by-products. One of the products sold by the 2 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.20807 of 2020 petitioner is flavored milk. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the petitioner that flavored milk would be covered under Entry 16 of Schedule IV of the A.P VAT Act and levied tax @ 14.5% by treating flavored milk as unclassified goods falling under Schedule-V of the AP VAT Act for the assessment period April, 2012 to March, 2015 and passed assessment orders. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Guntur against this order and the same came to be set aside by an order, dated 30.05.2016, wherein the Appellate Deputy Commissioner held that flavored milk would be exempt from tax or, at best, should be taxed only @ 4% and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. 3. At that stage, the 3rd respondent sought to revise the order of Deputy Commissioner. This revision culminated in an order, dated 18.09.2020, passed by the 1st respondent confirming the revision initiated by the 3rd respondent. This confirmation occurred on the ground that the order of the AP VAT Tribunal relating to the classification of flavored milk, favoured the revenue and the same would be taxable @ 14.5%. 4. It may also be noted that the petitioner, at the stage of revision itself, had contended that the limitation for passing an order of revision had expired and no revisional order could have been passed. This contention of the petitioner was considered by the Revisional Authority, who held that the period of the revision had been extended by virtue of the orders of the Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the period 3 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.20807 of 2020 of limitation for filing matters by litigants, who could not pursue their rights on account of the Covid pandemics. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order in revision, passed on 18.09.2020, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 6. The petitioner has raised various contentions on merits, which have been answered by the respondents by filing their counter affidavit. However, the fact remains that the order of revision, dated 18.09.2020, had been passed against the appellate order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, dated 30.05.2016. 7. The period available for revision is contained in Section 32(3) of the A.P VAT Act, 2008. This provision stipulates that the period for revision is four years from the date of service of the order on the dealer. In the present case, the date of service of order on the petitioner is not clear but the revisional authority has not disputed the fact that the period of limitation, in the normal course, according to Section 32(3) of the A.P VAT Act, had expired. The Revisional Authority took shelter under the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, extending limitation for filing of cases of litigants to contend that the order passed on 30.09.2020 would still be within limitation. 8. This Court, in its judgment in Punjab Carbonic Private limited vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, dated 21.04.2025 in W.P.No.12529 of 2024, had held that the said extension of limitation, by virtue of the orders of 4 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.20807 of 2020 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would be available only for the benefit of the litigants and such extension of time is not available for the adjudicating authorities. 9. In such circumstances, it must be held that the order, dated 18.09.2020, is beyond limitation. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the revisional order, dated 18.09.2020, passed by the 3rd respondent-Additional Commissioner, C.T Legal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J RJS 5 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.20807 of 2020 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20807/2020 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 30.07.2025 RJS 6 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.20807 of 2020