HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR REVIEW I.A.No.1 OF 2025 IN WP No.25922 OF 2009 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) 1. The present application is filed to review order dated 28.03.2025 passed in WP No.25922 of 2009, whereunder the order of penalty levied under Section 10 (A) of the CST Act, 1956 by the 2nd respondent was confirmed. 2. The petitioner was a registered dealer on the rolls of 2nd respondent bearing TIN No.28790264396 under the provisions of AP VAT Act and CST Act. The petitioner is engaged in the business of Works Contracts. The petitioner filed ‘Nil’ returns from April, 2007 to February, 2008 i.e., till the cancellation of registration. However, the petitioner purchased Hydraulic Excavator on 28.06.2006 and 31.08.2007 as the same were required for execution of works contract. The assessing authority after issuing show cause notice passed penalty order dated 02.09.2019 on the ground that the goods purchased by it were 2 not utilized for the specific purpose incorporated in the registration certificate. After hearing the parties, the order of penalty was confirmed by this Court in the above writ petition. 3. The present review application is filed inter alia contending that ‘Nil’ returns were filed by the petitioner as there was no turnover under the VAT Act. It is further stated that though the VAT registration was cancelled on 29.02.2008, it was due to reconstitution of the petitioner entity from proprietorship to a partnership as per the partnership deed and contended that the business was continued uninterrupted in the same nature with all assets and liabilities carried forward and a fresh VAT registration was obtained from 01.04.2008. In view of the above, it is contended that the business was never discontinued and the machinery purchased by it were used for the purpose of works contract by the partnership firm of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was under bondafide and genuine belief that the capital goods like Hydraulic Excavators and Soil Compactors required for execution of works contract could be lawfully purchased by using C-Forms and therefore the penalty 3 levied by the assessing authority is liable to be set aside inasmuch as there was no mens rea. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 5. Perused material available on record. 6. Having perused the grounds raised in the present review petition, it is clear that the petitioner wants to introduce altogether a new case before this Court stating that the VAT registration of the petitioner was cancelled and thereafter registration was obtained in the name of partnership firm. The counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the business of the petitioner continued by the partnership firm and therefore the Hydraulic Excavator was used for the purpose of works contract only. 7. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that under law, the proprietary concern and the partnership firm are two different and distinct entities. Merely because the business of the petitioner continued interrupted in the same manner with all assets and liabilities would not entitled it to claim that the 4 business continued. It is needless to mention the TIN Numbers of the proprietary concern and partnership firm are also different. Therefore by no stretch of imagination the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby rejected. 8. Further on perusal of the ground No.13, raised in the review petition, it is clear that the returns filed by the petitioner is only in respect of specific works contract and not the entire turn over during the relevant period and the same was done in good faith as the petitioner did not consider it necessary to elaborate further, believes that the nature of business continued and the omission to furnish complete turn over details and supporting details was purely due to inadvertence. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner itself admitted that the turnovers were not disclosed properly by pleading inadvertence, which cannot be allowed. 9. It is not out of place to mention the petitioner while submitting the explanation to the show cause notice, did not bring it to the notice of the assessing authority nor the same was advanced during the course of hearing of the writ petition. By the 5 present application, the petitioner is trying to introduce new case altogether. The writ petition was filed during the year 2009 and the same was disposed of by order 28.03.2025. Nothing is forthcoming from the petitioner as to what effort it has taken during the Interregnum. Further, the pleas taken in the present review application were also available to the petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition, nevertheless neither in the explanation dated 12.08.2019 nor in the writ affidavit the same was pleaded. 10. It is settled law that a review petition is maintainable on discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant OR the same could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the order was made OR on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. The case on hand does not come under the said parameters. Therefore, on this ground also the present review petition is liable to be rejected. 11. Further the present review petition is also liable to be dismissed on yet another ground i.e., on perusal of the cause title, it is clear that the review petition is filed by- M/s. Ramesh Metals, Engineers, Contractors and Earth Movers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Movva Ramesh, 6 Having office at Sujatha Citadel, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Presently at D.No.59A-20-7, Gurnanaknagar, Krishna District. Whereas, the writ petition was filed by M/s. Ramesh Metals Engineers, Contractors and Earth Movers, # 40-4-11, 103-Sujatha Citadel, Jaasti Venkata Ratnam Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri Movva Ramesh. 12. From the above, it is clear that the writ petition was filed by the proprietary concerned and the present review application is filed by partnership concern, which is totally distinct and separate entity in the eye of law. Further, nothing is stated in the grounds raised in the present review, as to how the partnership firm can entertain the present application, which cannot step into the shoes of the writ petitioner. Therefore on this ground also the present application is also liable to be rejected. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, there is no error apparent on the face of record and there are no merits in the review petition, accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR .08.2025 DR 8 156 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.677 OF 2025 AND WP No.16237 OF 2025 Dated 31.07.2025 DR