m ;/31 APHC010368602021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY present THE honourable SRI JUSTICE FIVE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND the honourable SRI JUSTICE WRIT petition NO: 22/i23 OF ynoi T.C.D.SEKHAR Between: M/s. Karnataka Cooperative Complex. D.R. College Post, Represented by its Managing Sekharaiah, Aged about 57 Milk Producers Federation Dr. M.H. Marigowda Road, Bangalore I Director Bangalore, KMF -560 029 Sri. B.C. Satish, S/o. Chandra years. ...PETITIONER AND 1. state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Velagapudi, Amaravathi 2. The Chief Commissioner of ST Taxes, DNo.5-59 (CT) Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh. Formerly Commissioner of Commercial R- K. Spring Valley Apartments Bandar Road Krishna District, Eedupugallu Village, Kankipadu Pin-521144, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Mandal, Vijayawada Chief Secretary to Govt, of Andhra Interim Government Complex, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 4. The Assistant Commissioner i Officer, Tirupati-I Circle, Tirupati Pradesh, Building 1, 1 A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Floor, of state Tax, Formerly Commercial ', Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. Tax 5. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. I, Tirupati-ll Circle, Tirupati, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order may be or direction particularly in the na ure of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the assessment orders bearing No. 4281/2002-2003, 4281/2003-2004 05-05-2006 and 05-05-2006 for the and 4281/2004-2005 dated 24-03-2006 assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively as well as the resultant appeal orders CTR/99/08-09 dated 28-03-2009 in Appeal No. CTR/169/08-09 dated 31-08-2009 and CTR/169/08-09 dated 28-03-2009 Warangal and Guntur of Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) on levy, demand and collection of sales tax under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh General Sales ^ Ghee affected to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala as illegal void an non est in the eye of law. without jurisdiction and violative of article 265 Constitution of India, in the teeth of the judgement of the Honble Court dated 31-10-2013 i ‘ Tax Act 1957 on the sale of of Supreme Andh o . "^•^■^° ®833/2003 and also the judgement Of dhra Pradesh High Court dated 21-12-2011 in TRC Nos. 82 and 83 of 2011 "TZc No.32227/2013 dated 20-04-2015 and consequently direct the 4* Respondent herein to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 6833/2003 with the to give effect dated 31-10-2013 in C.A. No. consequential acts and actions including refund and pass proper under the such other order circumstances of the or orders as case. are deemed fit and (Main prayer I.A.No.1 of 2025 i was amended as in W.P.No.22523 of 2021) per Court order dt. 21.08.2025 Vide lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay 50% of the amounts due to forthwith pending final adjudication of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings to all the respondents in the Writ Petition and punish them for the willful contempt and grant such other relief are deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. J. K. KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: the Petitioner or reliefs as case. 1 RRR, J &TCOS, J W.P.No.22523 of 2021 APHC010368602021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T^C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No:22523 of 2021 Between; ...PETITIONER M/s. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MVJ KKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard, Sri M.V.K. Murthy, learned counsel representing Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned G.P. for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. ■ - I 2 RRR, J aifcds, J W.P.No.22523of2021 - 2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Milk Producers is in the business of selling Milk and Milk petitioner had been supplying Cow Ghee Devasthanam Federation, which Products including Ghee. The to M/s. Tirumala Tirupati had issued in the year 2001-2002. The Government, G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 28.04.1988 under Section 9 of the APGST Act, 1957 (for short Act 6 of 1957) exempting sale and purchase of goods by M/s. Tirumal Tirupati Devasthanam, from the tax payable under Act 6 of 1957. The had not collected any tax from petitioner, on the basis of this G.O. M/s.Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. 3. While the matters stood thus the 4‘^ respondent-Assessing a provisional assessment order, dated 05.08.2002 in Officer had issued relation to months of July 2001 and November 2001 and March 2002, levying apart from In the course of on the ground that the Memo issued by the Government in Memo No.53736/CT-ll(1)/98-1, dated 07.02.2000 tax on the sale of Ghee to M/s.Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam assessing tax due from the petitioner in relation to other sales, the assessment, the 4“^ respondent. had reduced the scope of exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.314 28.04.1988, to the taxable purchase Devasthanam itself, had rejected the plea of the the exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.314 dated 28.04. , dated and sales of M/s.Tirumala Tirupati petitioner for application of 1988. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by petitioner approached the way of W.P.No.15594 of 2002. 3 ■ RRR, j &m, J. W.P.No.22523 of 2021 This writ petition came to be disposed of on 21.08.2002 relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal. Aggrieved by this order of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of a Special Leave Petition. After leave had been granted, the matter has been taken up as Civil Appeal No.6833 of 2003. Initially, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted status quo with 5. reference to the issue pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the State approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court for clarification on the order of status quo. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order, dated 02.12.2005, had clarified the order, dated 17.02.2003 in the following manner: “This application for clarification of the order dated 17.02.2003 has been made by the respondent-State. We direct that in respect of future Assessment Years, i.e. After the Assessment Year 2001-2002, the assessments may be made but for the time being, and subject to the result of the pending appeal, the demands, if any, shall be enforced only to the extent of the amount collected from the TTD, if any. This is without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner that it has not collected any amount from the TTD.” Thereafter, assessment for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 6. 2004-2005 were taken up and assessment orders were passed on 24.03.2006, 05.05.2006; and 05.05.2006. In these assessment orders, the sale of Ghee by the petitioner to M/s.Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam was Taxed on the basis of Memo, dated 07.02.2000. The appeals filed against 4 RRR, j ms, J , W.P.No.22523of 2021 ‘ these assessment orders were also rejected on 28.03.2009 and 31.08.2009 for the assessment periods 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The orders in the appeal were also passed on the basis of the Memo dated 07.02.2000. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of C.A.No.6833 of 2003 holding that the Memo dated 07.02.2000, does not override G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 28.04.1988, and that the said Memo should be ignored, set aside the 7. assessment order, dated 05.08.2002, with a direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law by ignoring the Government Memo dated 07.02.2000. After this order had been passed, the Assessing Authority had passed a fresh order, dated 26.02.2014, for the assessment years 2001- 2002. In this assessment order, the claim of the petitioner for exemption of sale of Ghee to M/s.Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam was accepted and the same was not taken into account while determining the taxable turnover. The petitioner, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition, contending that a conjoint reading of the clarification order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 02.12.2005, with the final order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2013, would make it amply clear that a duty was cast on the tax authorities to take adequate and appropriate steps to bring the assessment orders passed, during the pendency of the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in line with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that the assessment orders would have to be set aside and fresh assessment would have to be carried out. 8. 5 € RRR, j &ias, d W.P.No.22523 of 2021 9. On the question of limitation for carrying out such reassessment, Dr. M.V.K. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon Section 24A of Act 6 of 1957, which reads as follows: Section-24A. Limitation in respect of certain orders.- Notwithstanding anything in sections 14 and 20 where assessments or re-assessments an assessment, re assessment, rectification in or revision of an assessment is made in respect of an assessee or any person, in pursuance or in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 19, section 20, section 21, section 22 or section 23 or in an order of any court in a proceeding, otherwise than by way of appeal or revision under this Act, such assessment. re assessment, rectification in or revision of an assessment shall be made within three years from the date of receipt of such order by the assessing or revising authority as the case may be. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would contend that the orders of assessment for the relevant years had attained finality on account of the dismissal of the appeals filed against these orders. He would submit that in the absence of any challenge to the said orders, which had become final, the petitioner cannot press the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court into service for reopening the assessment orders, which have been completed. 10. 11. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the interim order passed on 02.12.2005, is not available to the petitioner in view of M . a 6 RRR, J SniflS, J W.P.No.22523 of 2021 " passing of final order, dated 31.10.2013. He would submit that the said order the final order and unless the final order also issues a similar direction, it wouid have to be taken that the interim oiarificatory order had worked itself out. would merge into Sri M.V.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to i.A.No.1 of 2025 in which an amendment of the sought for challenging the orders of said application has been allowed by way of a separate '12. in the Writ Petition, was prayer, assessment. The order today. The fact is that the Hon'bie Supreme Court had heid that the G.O.Ms.No.314 dated 28.04.1988 is a clear transaction of purchase or sale by M/s.Tirumala Tirupati The Hon’bie Supreme Court had also held that the Memo 13. exemption granted under exemption, on any Devasthanam which can, at best, be treated as instructions to the officers of the State, Government Order issued by exercising statutory power. In cannot override a the sale of Ghee to M/s.Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam such circumstances. cannot be taxed. of whether there could be a reassessment, by 14. Though the issue the assessing authority himself or not had arisen, the said contention does not this Court for the simple reason that the require to be answered by assessment orders themselves are challenged before this Court. 7 € RRR, J ms. J W.P.No.22523 of 2021 V 15. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed/setting aside the orders of assessment, dated 05.08.2002 for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 and the same are remanded back to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh assessment orders in line with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2013, in Civil Appeal No.6833 of 2003. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall' stand closed. Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAF! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Revenue (CT) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, of ST Formerly Commissioner of Commercial Bandar Road, 1. The Principal Secretary 2. The Chief Commissioner Taxes, DNo.5-59, R. K. Spring Valley Apartments, Kankipadu Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Eedupugallu Village, Pin-521144, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Chief Secretary to Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, Building 1, 1 Interim Government Complex, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 4. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Formerly Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupati-I Circle, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. Commercial Tax Officer 1, Tirupati-11 Circle, St Floor, Tirupati, 5. The Deputy Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. One CC to Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CC’s to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P.[OUT] 9. Two CD Copies. ssb . ,» HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 22523 OF 2021 of 5 H SE^ 2025 ^ Currenl Secuon m ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS