APHC010580942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3559] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NOs: 30524, 30525, 30526, 30533, 30534 AND 30537 OF 2024 In W.P.No.30524/2024: Between: 1. KSS PETRON PRIVATE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), REPRESENTED BY SHRI. CS VINEET K CHAUDHARY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, C/O. MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED, KUMARASWAMY RAJA NAGAR, JAYANTHIPURAM, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 175. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NANDIGAMA CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA - I DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. ...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 2 pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in CST Revision Order dated 29.03.2022 issued vide A.O. No. ZH370322OD26407 for the FY 2013- 14 in contravention of Section 32 of the AP VAT Act, 2005 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, barred by limitation and against the principles of natural justice and to pass In WRIT PETITION NO: 30525/2024 Between: 1. KSS PETRON PRIVATE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION),, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. CS VINEET K CHAUDHARY, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, C/O. MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED, KUMARASWAMY RAJA NAGAR, JAYANTHIPURAM, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 175 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NANDIGAMA CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. ...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 to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in CST Revision Order dated 29.03.2022 issued vide A.O. No. ZH370322OD46124 for the FY 2014- 15 in contravention of Section 32 of the AP VAT Act, 2005 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, 3 unconstitutional, unreasonable, barred by limitation and against the principles of natural justice. B. And to pass such In WRIT PETITION NO: 30526/2024 Between: 1. KSS PETRON PRIVATE LIMITED(IN LIQUIDATION), REPRESENTED BY SHRI. CS VINEET K CHAUDHARY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, C/O. MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED, KUMARASWAMY RAJA NAGAR, JAYANTHIPURAM, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 175 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NANDIGAMA CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA - I DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. ...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 to A. ay be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the Respondent in CST Revision Order dated 29.03.2022 issued vide A.O. No. ZH370322OD46373 for the FY 2015-16 in contravention of Section 32 of the AP VAT Act, 2005 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, barred by limitation and against the principles of natural justice. and to pass In WRIT PETITION NO: 30533/2024 Between: 1. KSS PETRON PRIVATE LIMITED(IN LIQUIDATION), REPRESENTED BY SHRI. CS VINEET K CHAUDHARY, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, C/O. 4 MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED, KUMARASWAMY RAJA NAGAR, JAYANTHIPURAM, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521 175. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NANDIGAMA CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA - I DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. ...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 toA. may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in CST Penalty Order dated 12.07.2022 issued vide A.O. No. ZH3707220D79004 for the FY 2014-15 consequent to the CST Revision Order dated 29.03.2022, as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, barred by limitation and against the principles of natural justice. and to pass In WRIT PETITION NO: 30534/2024 Between: 1. KSS PETRON PRIVATE LIMITED(IN LIQUIDATION), REPRESENTED BY SHRI. CS VINEET K CHAUDHARY, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, C/O. MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED, KUMARASWAMY RAJA NAGAR, JAYANTHIPURAM, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 175. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NANDIGAMA CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, 5 YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO. 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. ...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 to A. may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in CST Penalty Order dated 12.07.2022 issued vide A.O. No. ZH370722OD58786 for the FY 2015-16 consequent to the CST Revision Order dated 29.03.2022, as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, barred by limitation and against the principles of natural justice and to pass In WRIT PETITION NO: 30537/2024 Between: 1. KSS PETRON PRIVATE LIMITED(IN LIQUIDATION), REPRESENTED BY SHRI. CS VINEET K CHAUDHARY, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, C/O. MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED, KUMARASWAMY RAJA NAGAR, JAYANTHIPURAM, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 175. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NANDIGAMA CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA -1 DIVISION, D. NO 74-14-2B, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. 6 ...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 to Counsel for the Petitioner in all the writ petitions: 1. ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondent(S) in all the writ petitions: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 7 The Court made the following common order: (Per Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of establishing cement factories, was registered under the APVAT Act, 2005 with the 1st respondent. Three separate assessment orders, dated 20.07.2017, were passed by the 1st respondent, in the case of the petitioner, for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. 2. After these orders of assessment were passed, the 1st respondent again initiated further proceedings, on the ground that certain turnovers had escaped assessment. Though the word “Revision of assessment”, is mentioned in the impugned orders, the same can only be treated as a re- assessment order passed under Section 21(6) of the APVAT Act. The 1st respondent had passed separate orders on 29.03.2022 allegedly revising the earlier orders of assessment, dated 20.07.2017. 3. After passing these orders on 20.07.2017, the 1st respondent initiated penalty proceedings culminating in three separate orders of penalty, dated 12.07.2022. 4. The petitioner, which is presently in the liquidation, approached this Court by way of six separate writ petitions challenging the impugned order, dated 29.03.2022 as also the orders or penalty, dated 12.07.2022. 8 5. The details of these proceedings are given below: W.P. No. Date of Order challenged Period of the order 30524 29.03.2022 2013-14 30525 29.03.2022 2014-15 30526 29.03.2022 2015-16 30533 Penalty order dated 12.07.2022 2014-15 30534 Penalty order dated 12.07.2022 2015-16 30537 Penalty order dated 12.07.2022 2016-17 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent, who is the assessing authority, does not have any power of revision which is conferred solely on the Commissioner and other prescribed authorities, who would be superior to the assessing authority. It is further contended that the order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be treated as order passed under Section 32 of the APVAT Act and can only be treated as an order of re-assessment passed under Section 21(6) of the APVAT Act. 7. The learned counsel would also point out that the period of limitation within which the re-assessment order can be passed is four years from the date of the assessment order. He would submit that in the present case, the assessment order was passed on 20.07.2017 and any order of re-assessment would have to be passed on or before 20.07.2017 whereas the orders of re- assessment were passed on 29.03.2022 which is beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 21(6) of the APVAT Act. 8. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also assail the orders of revision / re-assessment on the ground that the conditions 9 necessary for such an exercise, were not available in the present case and the orders would have to be set aside on that ground also. 9. The learned counsel would also assail the orders of penalty on the ground that the said orders of penalty are based upon the orders of re- assessment, dated 29.03.2022 and the same would fall once the orders of re- assessment had been set aside. 10. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on the other hand, would submit that the conditions necessary for exercise of jurisdiction, by the 1st respondent, under Section 21(6) of the APVAT Act are available and have been made out in the orders of re-assessment made by the 1st respondent. 11. We do not propose to go into the question whether the re-assessment passed by the 1st respondent, comply with the conditions required for passing the order of re-assessment, dated 29.03.2022. This course of action is not necessary in as much as the orders would have been set aside on the ground of limitation. 12. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of limitation for an order of re-assessment under Section 21(6) of the APVAT Act is four (4) years from the date of assessment and the said four years had elapsed before 29.03.2022, when these orders came to be passed. 13. The orders of penalty, dated 12.07.2022, were passed on the basis of the re-assessment orders, dated 29.03.2022. As the re-assessment orders 10 are being set aside by this Court, the consequential penalty orders would also fail. 14. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders of re-assessment, dated 29.03.2022 as well as the orders of penalty, dated 12.07.2022 passed by the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date 05.11.2025 KA/KSS 11 203 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NOs: 30524, 30525, 30526, 30533, 30534 AND 30537 OF 2024 Date 05.11.2025 KA/KSS