Date of reserved for orders : 31.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2026 Date of uploading : 31.08.2026 APHC010041222007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3602] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM TAX REVISION CASE NO: 57/2007 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 CONVERTERS PRIVATE LIMITED CHITTOOR, Pantramalli Village & Post Aragonda Road, Chittoor-517004 ...RESPONDENT Take the TRC on file and set aside the orders of the Hon’ble 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 The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM TAX REVISION CASE NO: 57 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) Heard learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax and Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) The appellant is the State and the respondent is a dealer which was registered under A.P.G.S.T. Act. The appellant is the assessees on the rolls of Commercial Tax Department. The respondent engaged in the business of packing material. The Assessing Authority assessed the respondent under A.P.G.S.T. Act for the year 1999-2000 by order, dated 21.12.2001. Subsequently, the respondent submitted an application requesting the Assessing Authority to give exemption on the sale made to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), Tirupati, on a turnover of Rs.14,84,667/- and requested to revise the assessment order under Rule 50(4) of the APGST Rules. The Assessing Authority by following the directions issued by the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.162, dated 03.04.2002 gave exemptions on the sales of packing materials to TTD and passed reassessment order on 09.07.2002. The Revisional Authority i.e., DC (CT), Chittoor Division, revised the reassessment order of the Assessing Authority, dated 09.07.2002. The Revisional Authority passed order on 07.07.2006 holding that there is no evidence to show that the respondent had not charged the sales tax from TTD and in the absence of non-charge of tax by the respondent from the TTD, the 3 respondent cannot claim exemption and had withdrawn the exemption granted on the entire turnover. The Revisional Authority also held that the Assessing Authority applied lower rate of tax of 4% on the first sales of laminated paper treating them as packing material, but the laminated paper with printed material fall under Entry-I of Seventh Schedule to APGST Act and is liable to tax @ 10% up to December, 1999 and @ 12% from January, 2000 to March, 2000. The order of the Revisional Authority, dated 07.07.2006 was served on the respondent on 23.08.2006. 3) Aggrieved by the order, dated 07.07.2006 of the Revisional Authority, the respondent approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal in T.A.No.638 of 2006, the said appeal was allowed by Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad by an order, dated 13.06.2007 in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the State filed the present Revision before this Court. 4) The main contention of the respondent is that the Revisional Authority in the guise of revising the reassessment order, dated 09.07.2002, in fact, revised the original assessment order, dated 21.12.2001. He would submit that the revisional order, dated 07.07.2006 is passed beyond the period of four years and is barred by limitation. He further submits that even if the reassessment order, dated 09.07.2002 is taken into consideration, the revision order is barred by limitation, since the same was served on the appellant on 23.08.2006. He would further submit that the Revisional Authority erred in re-classifying the laminated film rolls and treating them as general goods. It is the specific case of the respondent that the goods sold by the 4 respondent are printed packing material, wrappers of plastic for chocolates, biscuits, etc. Accordingly, he would submit that the goods fall under item 19 (iv) of the First Schedule, which provide “All types of containers not mentioned above”. 5) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for appellant, would contend that the order, dated 09.07.2002, is an order of reassessment and as such, the said assessment order, dated 31.05.2001, stands merged into the order of reassessment, dated 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. Accordingly, he would submit that the order, dated 07.07.2006 is within the time and as such, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot set aside the reassessment order on the ground of limitation. 6) Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it appears that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent held that there is no merger of the assessment order, dated 31.05.2001, into the order of reassessment, dated 09.07.2002. So far as the issue of rate of tax on sale of laminated paper is concerned, the Tribunal held that the order of reassessment with regard to 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. 7) In fact, the issue involved in the present Tax Revision Case is no longer res judicata, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of 5 the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M/s. Universal Concerters Private Limited in Tax Revision Case No.51 of 2007 by judgment, dated 13.03.2026 by following a judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh in the case of M/s. Agarwal Industries Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes1 observed and held as extracted hereinunder: “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.” 1 (2013) 56 APSTJ 175 6 8) On perusal of the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Agarwal Industries Limited’s case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment supra. 9) By following the ratio laid down in the judgment of M/s. Agarwal Industries Limited’s case (supra), in our considered view, there are no valid or legal grounds to entertain this appeal. 10) Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is dismissed. 11) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM Dated: 31.08.2026 PGR 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM TREV.NO:57 OF 2007 Dt.31.08.2026 PGR