APHC010304442003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 135/2003 Between: 1. THE STAT.,GOVT OF AP.,HYD, - ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S ANDHRA STEEL CORP LTD VSP, - ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PASAM SRINIVASA REDDY 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J TRC.No.135 of 2003 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent, was assessed to tax, for the assessment year, 1985-1986, under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, by way of an order of assessment, dated 20.07.1993. In the course of this assessment, the respondent claimed that, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.498, dated 20.03.1984, the respondent was entitled to set-off on the tax, which had been collected from his purchaser and paid by him, on the purchase of steel ingots or billets against the tax payable by him, in relation to the finished products sold by him. This contention was accepted by the Assessing Officer, and a sum of Rs.26,80,530/- was given as set-off. 2. The Jurisdictional Revisional Deputy Commissioner, initiated revisional proceedings, under Section 20(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, and passed an order, dated 30.12.1995, holding that, the respondent was entitled to a set-off only of Rs.25,77,433/-. Aggrieved by this Order, the respondent approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by way of T.A.No.217 of 2000. This Appeal came to be allowed, on 25.09.2001. 3. Aggrieved by the Order, passed in T.A.No.217 of 2000, the State is in revision before us. 4. The entire dispute revolves around G.O.Ms.No.498 and the method of calculation, of the set-off, that is permissible. The notification in G.O.Ms.No.498, reads as follows: 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J TRC.No.135 of 2003 NOTIFICATION-II In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Act VI of 1957), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that where a tax has been levied and collected under the said Act in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State, of steel ingots or billets referred to in Item 2 of the Third Schedule to the said Act, the tax leviable under Section 6 of the said Act on the re-rolled finished products manufactured within the State from out of such ingots or billets by the steel re-rollers and Mini-Steel Plants-Cum-Re-Rollers (in case of purchase of ingots and billets by them in the State) situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and sold inside the State shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied and collected on such ingots and billets during the period from the 4th of February, 1982 to the 31st of March, 1985. 5. Under this Government Order, the respondent was entitled to set-off the tax levied and collected, in relation to the purchase of steel ingots or billets, by the respondent. The respondent was entitled to set-off, from the tax payable by the respondent, on the sale of finished products sold by him. The rate of tax, in relation to these goods was @ 4%. The turnover on which this tax was calculated was Rs.6,70,13,242/-. The respondent claimed the tax paid, on this turnover, to be Rs.25,77,433/- by simply taking 4% of the turnover of Rs.6,70,13,242/- as his payment of tax. This calculation was not accepted by the Revisional Deputy Commissioner, on the ground that, the actual purchase value of the goods was Rs.6,44,35,809/-, while the tax element on this purchase value was Rs.25,77,433/-, aggregating to the turnover of Rs.6,70,13,242/- 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J TRC.No.135 of 2003 6. The Tribunal had held that, the correct amount of set-off would be Rs.26,80,530/- instead of Rs.25,77,433/-, calculated by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. This Court is of the view that, the correct calculation would be the calculation, made by the Deputy Commissioner, by virtue of which the respondent had sought an additional set-off of Rs.1,03,097/-. 8. In that view of the matter, this Tax Revision Case is allowed and the Order of the Tribunal is set aside, reinstating the Order of the Deputy Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:23.02.2026 KPV 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J TRC.No.135 of 2003 277 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE No.135 of 2003 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J TRC.No.135 of 2003 23.02.2026 KPV