APHC010543522008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH 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: 59/2008 Between: 1. M/S. RATNA RICE MILL, E.G. DIST., PITHAPURAM, E.G. DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Pithapuram, E.G. Dist. ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2008(TREVCMP 23 OF 2008 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 to condone the delay of 187 days in representing above Tax Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUNUKU DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC. No.59 of 2008 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC. No.59 of 2008 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein, who is a rice miller, purchased paddy and had milled the same into rice, in the year 1998-99. Some of the rice, milled by the petitioner, was sold to exporters and the petitioner sought exemption on the sale of such rice, under the provisions of Section 5 (3) r/w Section 15 (CA) of the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956. This claim, for exemption, was rejected at the assessment level, first Appellate level as well as by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, dated 06.03.2007, the petitioner is now before this Court, by way of the present Tax Revision Case. 2. The Tribunal, following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Monga Rice Mill vs. State of Haryana and Another1, had held that the benefit of Section 5 (3) r/w Section 15 (CA) of the CST Act would be available only to those rice millers, who purchased paddy and exported the resultant rice procured from such paddy to other countries. The Tribunal, on the basis of this finding, had held that the petitioner had not exported the rice directly, but had sold to the exporters and had held that the said exemption was not available to the petitioner. 1 39 APSTJ 137 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC. No.59 of 2008 3. We do not find any lacuna in the said reasoning of the Tribunal. 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: 07.03.2026 MJA 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC. No.59 of 2008 42 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 59/2008 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 07.03.2026 MJA