1 APHC010288982023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14853/2023 Between: 1. M/S. CHINTA SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS,, 4/221, MAIN ROAD, PENUGUDURU, KARAPA MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT. A.P.-533016 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SATHI LAKSHMI BHASKARA REDDY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PRESENTLY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, DOOR NO.12-468-4, ADJACENT TO NH-16, SERVICE ROAD, KUNCHANAPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-522501 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT, PRESENTLY JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST), KAKINADA. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, JAGANNAIKPUR CIRCLE, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in 2 the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in passing the orders dated 19.04.2018 and 31.03.2015 passed by the 3rd and 4th respondents respectively for the period 2011-12 under the provisions of the CST Act and the endorsements dated 17.05.2023 and 24.01.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the settled legal position, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to revised the orders dated 19.04.2018 and 31.03.2015 after considering the -H- declaration forms and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for the recovery of alleged tax which has arisen in pursuance of the provisions of the CST Act, till the disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA 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 Pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, who carries on business in sale and export of rice, had disclosed a turnover of Rs.13,30,71,116/-, for the assessment year 2011-12, under the CST Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, Jagannaikpur Circle, Kakinada had assessed the petitioner in relation to the said turnover and levied tax of Rs.61,17,458/-. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer had issued a notice, dated 09.02.2016, contending that a turnover of Rs.1,21,67,500/- which was not included in the gross turnover, which had been declared under the VAT system had escaped assessment and called upon the petitioner to produce proof that the said turnover relates to export of rice under Section 5(1) of the CST Act, by producing the necessary documents. The petitioner contends that it had produced the necessary H- forms on 11.02.2016, before the Commercial Tax Officer, after which the Commercial Tax Officer did not take any further steps. 2. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada issued a notice in November, 2016 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assessment of 31.03.2015 should not be revised on the ground that a turnover of Rs.1,21,67,500/- had escaped assessment and a tax of Rs.6,08,375/- would become due. The petitioner had thereupon filed its reply stating that the H-forms had been placed before the Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner also furnished photostat copies of the said H-forms aggregating to turnover of 4 Rs.1,21,67,444/-, before the Deputy Commissioner. Apart from this, certain other documents relating to the said turnovers had also been produced before the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order of revision, dated 19.04.2018. In this order, the Deputy Commissioner recorded the following: “Accordingly, a Revision show cause notice has been issued to the dealer on 24.11.2016, by calling their written statement of objections, if any, against the said Revision show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Having received the said Revision show cause notice, the dealer filed objections through letter dated 19.12.2016 received on 20.12.2016 stating that they have already submitted Export sale details along with H-forms to the CTO Jagannaikpur on 11-2-2016. Now they filed documentary evidence of xerox copies of H-forms pertaining to sale in the course of Export for the year 2011-12 for Rs.1,21,67,500/- and requested to consider their claim of exemption”. 4. After recording these facts, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim, stating that no documents for the aforesaid turnover of Rs.1,21,67,500/- had been placed before the Assessing Officer. On that basis, the Deputy Commissioner revised the order of assessment, dated 31.03.2015, and raised an additional demand of Rs.6,08,375/-. Aggrieved by the said order of revision, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 5 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner apart from denying the receipt of necessary documents had also taken the view that the said documents cannot be looked into because they had not been placed before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. It is contended that the said finding is bad both on facts as well as on law. 6. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the order of Deputy Commissioner clearly states that no material has been placed before the Deputy Commissioner and in such circumstances, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be faulted. He would submit that exemption from payment of tax on the aforesaid turnover of Rs.1,21,67,500/- would be permissible only if necessary H-forms or other documents of direct export such as bill of lading etc. were produced before the revisional authority. As no such documents were produced, the petitioner would be liable for tax on the above said turnover. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also draw the attention of this Court to an endorsement, dated 17.05.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada. In this endorsement, the Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada recorded the statement of the petitioner that H- forms and other documents had recently been returned by the Commercial Tax Officer under reference bearing No.28300160396/2011-12(CST), dated 24.01.2023, returning seven H-forms which aggregating to the disputed turnover of Rs.1,21,67,500/-. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the said representation of the dealer, refused to accept the said H-forms on the 6 ground that he was not empowered to revise the assessment and also because they were produced after the order of assessment has been passed. 8. It is not understandable as to how the question of filing H-forms after the order of assessment would arise in the present case. The order of assessment, dated 31.03.2015, did not touch the aforesaid turnover. It is only subsequently that the Commercial Tax Officer raised this issue but did not take it to its logical conclusion. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner raised the very same issue and refused to take into account the H-forms produced by the petitioner even after recording that such xerox H-forms had been placed before him. The subsequent endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2023 would again show that the H-forms had in fact had been produced before the Commercial Tax Officer who returned them under a specific endorsement, mentioned above, in the year 2023. 9. All the aforesaid facts, which are on record, clearly make out a case in favour of the petitioner. As necessary H-forms had been filed by the petitioner and photostat copies of the same had also been placed before the Deputy Commissioner, the same should have been taken into account and the benefit of such H-forms should have been given to the petitioner. 10. In the circumstances, the order of revision, dated 19.04.2018, is set-aside and accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J RJS 8 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14853/2023 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 24.12.2025 RJS 9