APHC010383832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3516] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH 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: 9/2024 Between: Kondapalli Conveyers And Engineering (p) Ltd ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SANJEEVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2 HBKM,J & HVN,J TREVC.No.9 of 2024 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 Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes for the respondent. 2. This Tax Revision Case is filed against the order of the A.P.VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in T.A.No.463 of 2011 dated 10.10.2023, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein/appellant therein against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam (‘The DC/Revisional Authority (RA)’ for short) in Rc.No.321/208A8 (G.I.No.Nil/02- 03) dated 10.06.2008 for the year 2002-03 under the APGST Act, (‘The Act’ for short). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is dealing in conveyors and engineering goods and it is an assessee on the rolls of the CTO/Assessing Authority (AA), Steel Plant Circle, Visakhapatnam for the year 2002-03. The assessment was made under APGST Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam dated 06.04.2004. Considering the sales of Conveyors & Engineering Items (Direct) for the turnover of Rs.10,26,774/-, of which, the tax was levied @ 8% i.e., Rs.82,142/-. But this assessment order was reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam suo moto upon issuance of the show cause notice and due to non-submission of any explanation, it was treated 3 HBKM,J & HVN,J TREVC.No.9 of 2024 that 12% tax should be levied as per the existing G.O. with effect from 01.01.2000 and accordingly the order was passed by the said Deputy Commissioner on 10.06.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the A.P.VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in T.A.No.463 of 2011. But unfortunately the appellant could not be present either through its representative or its counsel. 4. But after hearing of the arguments of the said State Representative, the learned Tribunal passed the above said impugned order dated 10.10.2023 treating the said conveyors and engineering goods against Form-G would attract item-12 of G.O.Ms.No.910 dated 31.12.1999 as amended with effect from 01.01.2000 for levying of tax at 12% under entry 12 of Schedule VI. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in treating the said goods for consideration of attracting tax @ 12% instead of 8%. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes for the respondents submits that though opportunity was given before the assessing authority and as well as before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in su moto revision, the petitioner did not substantiate its contention for attraction of 8% tax on the above said turnover. In view of the same, the order under revision need not be interfered with. 4 HBKM,J & HVN,J TREVC.No.9 of 2024 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the balance tax amount of Rs.43,826/- is due, out of which 25% of the amount was deposited before the Tribunal while filing the above said tax appeal. The remaining amount is around Rs.32,000/- which is not yet paid. 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is manifestly established that the petitioner did not pursue either before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam or before the A.P.VAT Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the Tribunal's order at this stage. However, the point of law raised is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. 9. Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is dismissed. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. 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 19.02.2025 PGT