The State Of Telangana v. M/S. Maheswara Enterprises
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 33971
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA TAX REVISION cAsE NO: 6 OF 2022 Tax Revision case under section 34(1) R/w Rule 45 APVAT Act, 2005.against the oroer dated 31/10/2019 passed in T.A.No.9t/2014 on the file of the Telangana vrrre eoa"o Tax Appellette Tribunal Hyderabad, preferred against the order dated 11-02-2014, passed' in TlN. 28560184702, on the file of the Assistant Commissioner(Cl), lNT., Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar. Between:
The State of Telanqana, Rep. By the State Representative- before The Telangana VAT Adpellaie Triburial, D.No. 5-4-404 to 408' Nampally, Telangana, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner/Respondent
AND M/S. Maheswara Enterprises, 2-7-50, Jammikunta, Karimnagar' PIN 505122 ...RespondenUAPPellant Counsel for the Petitioner :M/s. B Sapna Reddy ' Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes Counsel for the Respondent: --- The Court made the following: Order
THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A T.R.E.V.C.No.6 OF 2022 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justtce P.SAII KOSHY) tleard Ms.B. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Department.
2.
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the pctitioner- Department, this Tax Revision Case was heard at admission.
3.
The present case is trled by the Department assailing the order, dated 31.1O.2019 passed by the Telangana V.A.1'. Appetlate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A.No.91 of 2OL4. 4.
Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has partlv allou'ed the appeal prcferred by the assessee.
5.
In the course of considering the submissions made by the lcarned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the Tribunal r.r'hile deciding the appeal took note of the fact that identical { ( issues have alre:rdy been laid to rest by the High Colrrt lor the State o[ Andhra Pradesh & Telangana, in the case of I(.G.F. Cotton (P) Limited., Bhainsa, Adilabad. District & Others Vs.
PSK,J E NBK,J T.R.E.v.C.No.6 of 2O22 Assisstclnt Commlssioner (CT) (LTII), Adilabad and. othersl. The said decision had further been subjected to challenge by the Department, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the special leave petition challenging the decision of K.G.F. Cotton (P) Lintted (supra l) has been dismissed affrrming the order of the High Court.
6.
In view of the fact that the order under challenge is one which is passed purely relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court, in the case of K.G.F. Cotton (P) Limited (supra 1) and which in the due course of time has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any substantial question of law made out by the Department u.hile assailing the impugned order. The T.R.E.V.C. thus fails and is accordingly rejected. There sha.[ be no order as to costs. petitions pending, if any Consequently, miscellaneous shall stand closed.
Sd/.M.VIJAYA BHAS JOINT REGIST R R 60 APSTJ 135 ,,TRUE COPY"
SECTION OFFICER To, The Telangana Value Added Tax Appellette Tribunal Hyderabad The Assistant Commissioner(Cii' rfui' KarimnagarDivision' Karimnagar' one cc to M/s. B stpn" n"tiv"bi"njinj co'n"tt for commercial rax' loPUCl
4. Two CD CoPies ADK
HIGH COURT DATED: 2111212023 .",:.
t 0 i],\l ,lr-l l ii I
ORDER
TREVC.No.6 of 2022 o REJECTING THE TREVC WITHOUT COSTS 44e.t v"?:2