APHC010603322007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH 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: 51/2007 Between: 1. THE STATE OF A.P., REP., BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE, REP., BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT D.NO.5-4- 404 TO 408 NAMPALLY, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S UNIVERSAL CONCERTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, Pantramalli Village & Post Aragonda Road, Chittoor-517004 ...RESPONDENT take the TRC on file and set aside the orders of the Honble STAT., A.P. Hyderabad in T.A.No.599 of 2006 638 of 2006 dated 13.6.2007 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J TREVC.No.51 of 2007 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent herein is a dealer, which was registered under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The respondent was in the business of sale of packing material and other stationery. The assessment proceedings of the respondent, for the assessment year, 1998-1999, had resulted in an order of assessment, dated 31.05.2001. The respondent, sought reassessment of the turnover of the respondent, on the ground that, the respondent had sold packing material worth Rs.1,55,000/- to M/s. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, and such sales were exempted from tax. The Assessing Officer, accepted this contention of the respondent and passed an order of reassessment, dated 09.07.2002, granting exemption to that extent. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority, initiated revisional proceedings and passed an order of revision, dated 07.07.2006. In this order of revision, the Revisional Authority, set aside the order of reassessment, dated 09.07.2002, and held that, the turnover of Rs.1,55,000/-, relating to sales to M/s. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, were not exempted from tax as the respondent had not demonstrated that he did not collect tax from M/s. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. Apart from this, the Revisional Authority also went into the question of rate of tax payable, on the sale of laminated paper. It was the contention of the respondent, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer, that the rate of tax, on sale of laminated paper was 4%. However, the Revisional Authority, took the view that the rate of tax, on sale of the laminated paper, was 12%. On this basis, the Revisional 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J TREVC.No.51 of 2007 Authority also revised the assessment order, by holding that, the respondent would have to pay tax @12%, on the sales of laminated paper. 2. Aggrieved by this revisional order, dated 07.07.2006, the respondent approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by way of T.A.No.599 of 2006. The said Appeal was allowed in favour of the respondent, by an order, dated 13.06.2007. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in Revision before this Court. 3. The respondent had raised two (02) contentions, relating to limitation. The first contention was that, the revisional order, dated 07.07.2006, came to be served on the respondent, on 23.08.2006, which would place it beyond limitation as no explanation had been given, for the delay in the service of the order of revision, dated 07.07.2006. We do not propose to go into this issue as we are disposing of this Tax Revision Case, on the basis of the second ground, raised by the respondent. 4. The respondent, as its second ground, contends that, the order of revision, dated 07.07.2006, is beyond limitation in as much as the order is relating to the tax payable, on the sales of laminated paper. 5. The case of the respondent is that, the order of assessment, relating to the rate of tax, on the sale of laminated paper was passed, on 31.05.2001 and the period within which such an order could have been revised, expired on 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J TREVC.No.51 of 2007 30.05.2005. However, the order of revision, came to be passed, on 07.07.2006, which is beyond limitation. 6. The respondent would also contend that, the reassessment order, dated 09.07.2002, would not extend limitation as the said order of reassessment, related only to the aspect of exemption of tax, in relation to sales made to M/s. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and did not deal with the rate of tax payable, on sale of laminated paper. 7. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, dated 09.07.2002, is an order of reassessment and as such, the said assessment order of 31.05.2001, stands merged into the order of 09.07.2002 and the period of limitation for passing an order of revision against the order, dated 09.07.2002, would be 08.07.2006. He would submit that the order, dated 07.07.2006, is within time and cannot be set aside, on the ground of limitation. 8. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, while dealing with this issue, had held that, there is no merger of the assessment order, dated 31.05.2001, into the order of reassessment, dated 09.07.2002. As far as the issue of rate of tax on sale of laminated paper is concerned, the Tribunal held that, the order of reassessment dealt only with the question of exemption from tax, on sales made to M/s. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and did not deal with the rate of tax, relating to the sale of laminated paper. 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J TREVC.No.51 of 2007 9. The impugned order of revision would be within time, if it is to be held that the order of assessment, dated 31.05.2001, had merged into the order, dated 09.07.2002. It is clear from the record that the order of reassessment, dated 09.07.2002, had only dealt with the question of whether sales made to M/s. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, would be exempted from tax or not. The issue of rate of tax, relating to sales of laminated paper, did not come up for consideration, in the order of reassessment. The question of merger of orders would arise only when the subsequent order deals with the issue, considered in the earlier order and modifies or even confirms the view taken in the earlier order. In the absence of consideration of such issues, it would have to be held that, the entire order of assessment, passed earlier, would not merge into the order of reassessment. 10. The same issue can also be looked at from another angle. The remedy against the order of assessment, for an assessee, is by way of an Appeal. The remedy for the Revenue is by way of a Revision, which can be taken up by the Revisional Authority. Limitation is prescribed for both avenues. This would mean that the Revenue, which is aware of the rate of tax, accepted by the Assessing Authority, cannot claim limitation, would stand extended, by virtue of a subsequent order of reassessment, which did not deal with this issue. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the Order of the Tribunal, does not require any interference. 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J TREVC.No.51 of 2007 12. This view of ours is fortified by a judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M/s. Agarwal Industries Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes1. 13. 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:30.03.2026 KPV 1 (2013) 56 APSTJ 175, (2013)61VST346(AP) 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J TREVC.No.51 of 2007 202 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE No.51 of 2007 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 30.03.2026 KPV