Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 148 (AP)

Gourav Kumar Anuj Kumar Guntur Dist. v. CTO

2026-02-09

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T.C.D.SEKHAR

body2026
Order : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. The petitioner purchases Turmeric and other products, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, on behalf of non-resident principals as well as others and dispatches the said turmeric and other products, by way of sale or otherwise, to outside the State. The assessment of the petitioner under the APGST Act, for the assessment year 2004-05 was completed, by way of an order of assessment, dated 26.11.2007. The assessing authority had completed the assessment of the petitioner, for the year 2004-05, under the CST Act also on 26.11.2007. The petitioner has no grievance, against the order of assessment, passed under the APGST Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of assessment, passed under the CST Act, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner had filed returns showing the turnover of Turmeric, transferred out of the State. The said returns showed that the petitioner had a turnover of Rs.5,67,28,092/- in relation to the Turmeric which was sent out of the State. The assessing authority split the aforesaid amount into two parts. The assessing authority assessed the turnover of Turmeric which, should have been sent out under F- Forms to be Rs.4,00,36,397/- and the Turmeric which should be sent out under C-Form to be Rs.1,66,91,695/-. 3. The assessing authority verified the F- Forms filed in relation to the gross turnover of Rs.4,00,36,397/- and disallowed a turnover of Rs.42,32,464/-. This disallowance was on the ground of no F-Forms had been filed at all, for Rs.5,43,563/- and a single F-form had been filed, covering a period of more than one calendar month, for a turnover of Rs.36,89,901/-. The assessing authority held that on these grounds, the aforesaid turnover would have to be disallowed. 4. The assessing authority also verified the C- Forms, filed against the turnover of Rs.1,66,91,695/-, and found that no C-Form had been filed in relation to a turnover of Rs.7,09,922/-. This turnover of Rs.7,09,922/- was also treated as taxable turnover. The assessing authority after having disallowed the aforesaid turnovers, brought the said turnovers to tax @ 10%. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said assessment order contends that the assessment order is contrary to the exemption granted, under G.O.Ms.No.296 Revenue (CT-II) Department, dated 09.04.1999. This turnover of Rs.7,09,922/- was also treated as taxable turnover. The assessing authority after having disallowed the aforesaid turnovers, brought the said turnovers to tax @ 10%. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said assessment order contends that the assessment order is contrary to the exemption granted, under G.O.Ms.No.296 Revenue (CT-II) Department, dated 09.04.1999. This Government Order reads as follows: “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts from payment of tax under the said Act on the sales of Chillies, Turmeric and Cashew nut (with shell) in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, provided that the tax has been levied and collected on such goods under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. This notification shall be deemed to have come into effect from 1 st April, 1995. Note: The above G.O was rescinded by G.O.Ms.No.1470 Revenue, dated 07.10.2006 (Notification-II SL.No.13) w.e.f. 01.12.2006.” 6. The learned Government Pleader would rely upon the circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes bearing CCT’s Ref.No.AII(2)/96/2006, dated 08.03.2006. In this circular, the Commissioner had directed the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department that any movement of goods, on account of inter-State sales or otherwise, out of the State would be taxable, despite G.O.Ms.No.296, unless C-Forms and F-Forms are furnished in relation to such turnovers. 7. In the normal course, any movement of goods out of the State would attract a levy under the Central Sales Tax Act unless the dealer moving such goods out of the State is able to demonstrate that the said goods were being moved out, in the course of inter-State sale, to another dealer for onward sale or use by such a dealer in the other State. For such purpose, C-Forms would have to be produced. Upon such production, the rate of tax would be reduced to the concessional rate, prescribed from time to time. Similarly, the dealer can also demonstrate that the goods are not being moved out, by way of a sale, and are only being moved, by way of a branch transfer. In such cases, the dealer would have to file necessary F-Forms. Upon production of such forms and subject to verification, the turnover covered by such F-forms would be exempt from tax. 8. In such cases, the dealer would have to file necessary F-Forms. Upon production of such forms and subject to verification, the turnover covered by such F-forms would be exempt from tax. 8. In the present case, the dealer has claimed that a part of the turnover relates to sales under C-Forms and a part of the turnover relates to branch transfer covered under F-Forms. The assessing authority had verified the C-Forms and F-Forms and disallowed certain turnovers on the ground that the said turnovers are not properly covered under the C-Forms and F-Forms. 9. However, the petitioner would contend that even in the absence of C-Forms and F-Forms, the movement of goods could only being treated as sales, attracting the maximum rate of tax under the CST Act. In such a situation, G.O.No.296, which exempts payment of taxes under the CST Act, if the petitioner had already paid tax of these goods would come to his rescue. The petitioner contends that the assessing authority does not dispute the fact that the goods moved out of the State, were Turmeric which had already suffered tax under the APGST Act and had been paid by the petitioner. 10. A perusal of the order of assessment, under the CST Act would show that the assessing authority has observed that the turnovers, under consideration, were turnovers of “tax paid goods”. In such circumstances, it would have to be held that G.O.Ms.No.296 would be available to the petitioner and even if certain turnovers are to be treated as sales, which would attract tax at the highest rate, the same would still be exempted on account of G.O.Ms.No.296. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of assessment, dated 26.11.2007 is set aside. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.