1 APHC010341432006 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: 26/2006 Between: 1. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, REP BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, D.NO.5-4-404 TO 408, NAMPALLY, ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S CONCRETE PRODUCTS CONSTRUCTIONS CO, Krishna District. M/s.Concrete Products & Construction Co., Railway Station Yard, Kondapalli - 521 228, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA TAX REVISION CASE NO: 26/2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Hari Haranadha Sarma) Heard learned Government Pleader for 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 1997-1998 under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and imposed tax on the turnovers of Rs.6,41,24,240-00 (G.T.O.), Rs.33,16,597- 00 (E.T.O.) and Rs.6,08,07,643-00 (N.T.O.). The Commercial Tax Officer has assessed that the turnover of Rs.2,74,90,603/- as local sales. Further, the Commercial Tax Officer has added the turnover of Rs.5,82,461/- towards collection of Tax but not remitted to the Department and he has also added Rs.3,17,560/- towards excess sales tax collections. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, The respondent filed appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, which was dismissed on 27.02.2003. 3 5. The respondent preferred appeal in TA.No.624 of 2003 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, dated 27.02.2003. 6. The Appellate Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: “a) Whether the turnover of Rs.2,74,90,603/- to be treated as inter- State sales of sleepers or not? b) Whether the excess tax collections of RS.3,17,560/- can be added to the net turnover or not? c) Whether the excess tax collections of Rs.5,82,461/- forfeited by the assessing authority is sustainable in law or not?” 7. The appellate Tribunal held - [i] on point a) 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. [ii] on Point b), held that- “while calculating the determination of tax on the net turnover, the assessing authority has arrived at an amount of Rs.3,17,560/- as excess sales tax collection. There seem to be some confusion in the calculation made by the assessing authority and further, tax on tax concept has been withdrawn from 1.4.1995. However, the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority to examine this aspect in detail and to pass appropriate orders in the matter”. 4 [iii] on point c) the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority for further verification and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 8. Upon the above findings, the appeal of the respondent was partly allowed and partly remanded by the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned Order dated 08.02.2006. 9. Challenging the said judgment, present Revision has been filed. 10. 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?” 11. 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 1 2014 Vol.68 VST 87 5 TRVC.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.” 12. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is no challenge to the aforesaid finding that the goods moved from Andhra Pradesh to other states pursuant to the agreement. 13. It is relevant to note that the turnover is relating to inter-state sales of Sleepers from Kothapally to Chennai. The point that was addressed is that though the address at Chennai is shown in Form-D since the dispatch is from the factory at Kondapallly and it is sufficient to claim the concessional rate of 4% tax. The appellate authority has considered some judgments of the High Courts and even the Supreme Court, as to when the delivery has taken place at a different State which is outside the State from which the goods are consigned, it is an inter-state sale; the destination to which the goods are dispatched 6 is relevant in comparison to the place of consignment, to consider whether there was movement of goods from one State to another State. 14. Further, learned appellate authority has referred to consignee particulars and „D‟ Form, details of discharge etc.. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the appellate authority is found justified and the issue relating to the inter-state, sale has been covered by the judgments of this Court in other matters vide TREVC No.31 of 2006 etc., wherein the cases of TREVC.Nos.81 and 88 of 2003 (supra) were also referred. 14. 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. 15. 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 7 376 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA TAX REVISION CASE NO: 26/2006 Dt.21.08.2025 Pnr