APHC010453782003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE SECOND 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: 169/2003 Between: 1. THE STATE OF AP,REP.BY SR BEFORE STAT, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,REP.BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE S.T.A.T. D.NO.5-4-404 TO 408 NAMPALLY, A.P., ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S TASHTRIYA ISPATH NIGAM LTD, M/S.RASHTRIYA ISPATH NIGAM LIMITED VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL LPLANT VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. SPL GP FOR TAXES Counsel for the Respondent: 1. A SARVESWAR RAO 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.169 of 2003 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.169 of 2003 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent herein, in the course of establishing its manufacturing unit, had given certain contracts to the contractors for execution of civil works and installation of machinery. In the course of these contracts, the respondent had also supplied construction material and equipment, by collecting hire charges from them. Apart from this, the respondent had also supplied water to the labour engaged by the contractor by installing water meters in labour colonies and recovered the cost of water from the contractors. 2. The hire charges and the water charges collected by the respondent were sought to be taxed by the Authorities. Both these turn-overs were brought to tax, by way of an order of revision, issued by the Joint Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Commissioner, the respondent moved the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. In the Tribunal, the respondent raised three contentions. Firstly, that the hire charges on the equipment given to the contractors is not exigible to tax. Secondly, the water charges collected from the contractors, by supply of water to the labour, is also not exigible to tax; and thirdly, the order of revision itself is barred by limitation. 4. The Tribunal held that the hire charges, collected by the respondent, in relation to the hire of machinery, are not exigible to tax. The Tribunal held that the turn-over relating to the water charges collected by the 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.169 of 2003 respondent would not be exigible to tax. Finally, the Tribunal held that the order of revision, levying these two taxes on these two turn-overs is beyond limitation and set aside the order of the Revisional Authority. 5. The State, being aggrieved by the said order of revision, has approached this Court, by way of the present Tax Revision Case. 6. The question of levying tax on hire charges on the equipment supplied by the respondent had been considered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of the respondent itself, for the year 1988-89, wherein it was held that no tax could be levied on the turn-over relating to the hire charges. As no revision has been moved by the respondent in relation to the decision of the Tribunal, regarding the exigibility to tax on water charges, the same would arise only after it is found that the order of revision is within limitation. 7. It appears that the revision proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner were kept on hold on the ground that a similar issue was pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of T.R.C. No.256 of 1990 and batch. Later, the said proceedings were completed after the said Tax Revision Cases had been disposed of the Hon’ble High Court. It is an admitted case that the order of revision of the Joint Commissioner would be within time only if the revision proceedings were initiated within the stipulated period of limitation. The Tribunal has given a finding of fact that the issues in T.R.C.No.256 of 1990 & batch were the questions of whether the 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.169 of 2003 supply of cement, steel and AC sheets by the contractee to the contractor on cost recovery basis, for use in works contracts, would be exigible to tax by treating the supply as sale. The Tribunal had then held that this issue had no relevance or relation to the issue before the Tribunal on the question of levy of tax on hire charges and water charges. 8. On the basis of this finding of fact, the Tribunal has held that the period spent cannot be excluded for calculating the period of limitation, within which the revision should have been passed. 9. In view of this finding of fact, we do not find any ground that the order of revision was within limitation. 10. Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is dismissed. 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: 02.02.2026 MJA 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J T.R.C.No.169 of 2003 206 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 169/2003 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 02.02.2026 MJA