The State Of Andhrapradesh vs. Kusumanchi Rameshwara Rao Traders
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC011354212007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD 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 Nos.: 111/2008 & 26/2009
TAX REVISION CASE NO: 111/2008 Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH, AP
...PETITIONER AND 1. KUSUMANCHI RAMESHWARA RAO TRADERS, AP
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent:
S R R VISWANATH
2 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC Nos.111 of 2008 & 26 of 2009
3 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC Nos.111 of 2008 & 26 of 2009
The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Both these Revision Cases arise out of a common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, dated 27.09.2007. They are being disposed of by way of this common order, as the issues raised in both these cases are common.
In both these cases, the respondent dealers, being processing agents, were purchasers of raw cashew nuts from cashew nut farmers in the State of Andhra Pradesh and had dispatched these cashew nuts to their non- resident principals, out of the State, for the relevant assessment years. The respondent dealers had contended that the said purchase by them and the subsequent transport of raw cashew nuts to their non-resident principals cannot be taxed under the A.P. General Sales Tax (GST) Act, 1957 and can be treated only as sales under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956. The Assessing Authority rejected this contention and subjected the said turnover to tax under Section 5 and 5 (A) of the A.P. GST Act. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent dealers had moved appeals, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the respondent dealers had approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
It appears that various other dealers had also approached the Tribunal, by way of separate appeals. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal took
4 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC Nos.111 of 2008 & 26 of 2009
up all these matters together and disposed of the same, by way of a common order, dated 27.09.2007. 4. The Tribunal framed the following three issues, which require to be determined:
1) Whether the purchases of cashew nuts by the appellants from the various sellers of AP amount to purchases in the course of inter-state trade and commerce for the purpose of Section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957? If so, whether they are taxable under Section 5/5A of the APGST Act, 1957 in the light of the provisions contained in Section 38 of the Act?
2) Whether the purchases of the gunnies made by Sri Kusumanchi Ramalingeswara Rao Traders, Narsipatnam, from certain un-registered dealers of A.P., which are dispatched to other states subsequently, containing therein the cashew nuts, are exigible to contingency purchase tax under Section 6 A of the APGST Act, 1957 in the light of the bar created in Section 38 of the Act?
3) Whether the lower authorities are justified in the addition of certain turnovers towards probable suppressions to that of the returned turnovers in the facts of the cases?
The Tribunal held that the transactions took place in the course of inter-state sales falling under the CST Act and cannot be brought to tax under the AP GST Act. One of the reasons for which the Tribunal had come to this conclusion was the Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ganesh
5 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC Nos.111 of 2008 & 26 of 2009 respondents – dealers .
1 29 APSTJ 59 2 29 APSTJ 58
6 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC Nos.111 of 2008 & 26 of 2009
The main contention raised before the STAT in the revision was that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of respondent dealers were made on behalf of the non-resident principals, who had appointed the respondent dealers, as their agents, under proper letters of authority. The Tribunal also held that the respondent dealers had produced necessary documents to demonstrate that the raw cashew nuts purchased by the respondent dealers had been sent out of the State in pursuance of the agreement of agency between the respondent dealers and their non-resident principals due to which the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not be applicable.
We find that the STAT has given a finding of fact that the respondent dealers had discharged their burden of demonstrating that they were agents for non-resident principals, to whom the cashew nuts purchased from the farmers, had been transferred by way of inter-state movement of 3 87 STC 196
7 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC Nos.111 of 2008 & 26 of 2009
goods. The Revenue has not been able to place any material or raise such submission as to doubt the finding of fact given by the Tribunal. In any event, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the finding of fact given by the Tribunal, unless such finding is perverse or based on a conclusion which no reasonable man would draw. We do not find any such situation also in the present case.
In that view of the matter, we do not find reason to intervene/interfere with the order of the Tribunal and these Tax Revision Cases are accordingly, 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:23.02.2026 MJA
8 RRR, J & TCDS, J TREVC Nos.111 of 2008 & 26 of 2009
223
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
TAX REVISION CASE Nos.: 111/2008 & 26/2009 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date:23.02.2026 MJA
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.