Telangana High Court
M/S.Cement Cirporation Of India Ltd vs The Stat.,State Of Ap.,Hyd on 28 May, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
TREVC. Nos. 122, 124, 125 & 126 of 2004
COMMON ORDER:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
Since the revision petitioner and the lis involved in all
these revision cases is one and the same, they are being
disposed of by this Common Order.
2. These Tax Revision Case are directed against the orders of
the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’),
passed under the provisions of CST Act, 1956 (for short ‘the
Act’). The case details are as follows:
TREVC.No. Date of order of Appeal No. before Assessment
Tribunal the Tribunal Year122/2004 15.09.2000 TA.No.1019/1996 1988-89
124/2004 18.09.2000 TA.No.1020/1996 1990-91
125/2004 04.10.2000 TA.No.1022/1996 1992-93
126/2004 22.09.2000 TA.No.1021/1996 1991-92
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State, in
all the revisions, and perused the record.
4. The case of the revision petitioner is that it is a
Government of India undertaking, manufacturing cement at its
2
plant in Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, and is registered on the
rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy
District.
5. Since the issue involved in all the revisions is one and the
same, the discussion is made in relation to TREVC.No.125 of
2004.
TREVC.No.125 of 2004
6. The revision petitioner contends that during the
assessment year 1992-93, it had received an order for supply of
cement from Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
Bangalore; that in order to comply with the aforesaid order, it
had supplied the cement from its units situated at Yerraguntla
of Cuddapah District and Tandur of Ranga Reddy District; that
against the aforesaid supplies made by the revision petitioner
from its aforementioned units, the recipient viz., Bangalore
Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore, had issued (03)
C-Declaration Forms covering the supplies made by it from both
the units; that the revision petitioner had submitted all the 3 C-
Declaration Forms to its Assessing Authority at Yerraguntla and
obtained certificate covering the supplies made from its Tandur
Unit included in the C-Declaration forms submitted by the
revision petitioner’s Yerraguntla Unit along with certified Xerox
3
copies of all the C-Declaration forms; and that on the revision
petitioner filing the aforesaid declarations, the Assessing
Authority had granted the benefit of concessional rate of tax
covering supplies made from Tandur Unit.
7. The petitioner further contends that the revisional
authority in exercise of revisional powers, had revised the order
of assessment, whereby the benefit of concessional rate of tax as
extended on the basis of the Xerox copies of C-Declaration
forms as certified by the Assessing Authority of the petitioner’s
unit at Yerraguntla, was withdrawn and the turnover relating to
interstate sales of cement to the tune of Rs.1,09,00,131/- was
assessed to tax at higher rate, as not covered by declaration
forms.
8. The revisional authority also further levied tax on HDPE
woven sacks, in which the cement is packed and sold by the
revision petitioner at the rate of tax applicable to cement.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the revisional
authority, the petitioner herein had filed appeal before the
Tribunal vide TA.No.1022/1996.
10. The Tribunal, insofar as levy of tax on HDPE woven
sacks(HDPE bags) at the rate of the contents i.e., cement is
concerned, by applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in
4
the case of Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 had held
that the conditions laid down by the Apex Court would apply
insofar as sale of cement by the appellant is concerned and
accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in
relation to levy of tax on HDPE Woven Sacks at the rate as
applicable to the cement.
11. Insofar as interstate supplies of cement made to
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore, for
which the revision petitioner was required to furnish C-
Declaration Forms to the Assessing Authority in order to claim
the benefit of concessional rate of tax, had observed that
concessional rate of tax cannot be granted on the basis of Xerox
copies, since the CST enactment does not provide for such
benefit being extended on submission of Xerox copies, and that
the submission of statutory forms in Original is a mandatory
requirement under the enactment to claim such relief.
12. By holding as above, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal
preferred by the revision petitioner on the aforesaid count also.
13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the
revisional petitioner has filed the present Revision.
1
1989(74) STC 379 (SC)
5
14. On behalf of the revision petitioner it is contended that
the Tribunal had failed to notice that the revision petitioner
having obtained (03) C-Declaration Forms covering the supplies
of cement made to Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage
Board, Bangalore, from its two units namely Yerraguntla and
Tandur, could procure the C-Declaration Forms against one
single purchase order and produce the same at one place; that
the concerned Assessing Authority, before whom the said C-
Declaration Forms are filed, having certified the Xerox copies
thereof insofar as the supplies affected from the revision
petitioner’s units at Tandur, it is entitled to claim benefit of
concessional rate of tax on such supplies; and thus, the
revisional authority as well as the Tribunal had erred in
rejecting the claim of concessional rate of tax on such supplies.
15. On behalf of the revision petitioner it is also contended
that since, HDPE Woven Sacks are reusable packing material,
the same are liable to be taxed at the rate as applicable to such
products under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957, and cannot
be subjected to tax at the rate of contents as was done by the
revisional authority and confirmed by the Tribunal, and thus,
prayed to allow this revision.
16. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
6
17. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of
the revision petitioner with regard to C-Declaration Forms, it is
necessary to refer to the provisions of CST Act, 1956.
18. Section 6 of the CST Act, 1956 deals with liability to tax
on interstate sales and Section 8(4) of the said Act provides for
the rate of tax on sales in the course of interstate trade or
commerce being subjected to concessional rate of tax @ 4%, if a
declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer, to
whom goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a
prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, is
furnished within the prescribed time or within such time as that
authority may for sufficient cause permit.
19. The Declaration contemplated under Section 8(4) of the
CST Act, is form-C Declaration as prescribed under CST(R&T)
Rules (for short ‘the Rules’).
20. A conjoint reading of Section 6 with Section 8(1) & (4)
read with Rule 12 of the CST Rules makes it clear that the
dealer selling goods in order to claim benefit of concessional rate
of tax is required to obtain C-Declaration forms in original
containing the details of supplies made against the purchase
order by obtaining the same from the purchasing dealer’s
Assessing Authority.
7
21. Though the revision petitioner had claimed of the
purchasing dealer’s Assessing Authority having issued a single
Declaration (3 in all) covering the supplies of cement made from
revision petitioner’s Yerraguntla Unit as well as Tandur Unit,
and the original of such declarations having been filed with the
Assessing Authority of Yerraguntla Unit, and the said assessing
authority having issued certificate along with certified Xerox
copies of such declarations, the said certified Xerox copies
cannot be equated as complying with the mandatory
requirement prescribed under the CST Act and the Rules made
thereunder.[See: Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Sales Tax, Delhi 2 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.,
Indoor v. Gajanan Bidi Leaves Co., 3].
22. The revision petitioner at least on noticing that the C-
Declaration forms issued by the purchasing dealer are covering
the supplies made by it from its units situated at Yerraguntla
and Tandur, ought to have taken steps to get the same rectified
by obtaining C-Declaration forms in respect of each supplies
made from each of its unit, separately.
2
(1997) 10 SCC 486=(1997) 104 STC 75
3
(1985) SCC Online MP 149 = (1986) 62 STC 203
8
23. Further, the revisional authority having noted that the
revision petitioner having filed duplicate copy of the C-Form,
pertaining to Tandur Unit with the CTO’s office, Yerraguntla, the
claim of the revision petitioner of the buyer having issued one
C-Form for the supplies made from its Yerraguntla and Tandur
Units and the original C-forms having been submitted to the
CTO’s Office at Yerraguntla Unit, clearly goes to show that the
assessee is camouflaging the transaction to avoid tax and the
said Xerox copies of (03) C-Declaration Forms cannot be
accepted as valid, the said finding recorded by the revisional
authority as confirmed by the Tribunal being a finding of fact, in
the considered view of this Court cannot be considered as giving
rise to question of law, and thus, the claim of the revision
petitioner on this count is rejected.
24. Insofar as next contention of the revision petitioner that
HDPE woven sacks being liable to tax under Entry 19 of
Schedule-I and such sale being not covered by the provisions of
Section 6C of the APGST Act is concerned, it is to be noted that
the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in Raj Sheel‘s case(1 supra) .
25. Further, Section 6C of the APGST Act at the relevant point
reads as under :
9
“where goods packed in any material or sold or
purchased the material, in which goods are so
packed, shall be deemed to have been sold or
purchased along with the goods and the tax shall
be leviable on such sale or purchase of the material
at the rate of tax, if any, as applicable to sale or as
the case may be, purchase of goods, themselves”.
26. Though on behalf of the revision petitioner, it is
contended that since, HDFE woven sacks are reusable, the test
that is required to be applied in such cases has been set-out by
the Apex Court in Raj Sheel‘s case(1 supra).
27. By applying the test laid down by the Apex Court to the
facts of the present case, it is to be noted that the revision
petitioner is not dealing in sale and purchase of HDPE bags and
is not a registered dealer to deal in sale and purchase of HDPE
woven sacks. Since, the revision petitioner has used HDPE
woven sacks for packing the cement for being sold, it cannot be
said that there is an implied agreement to sell cement and
HDPE woven sacks, separately, for it not to be subjected to tax
under the provisions of Section 6C and on the other hand, liable
to be taxed as independent container liable to tax at the rate
applicable to such containers under Schedule-I of the APGST
Act.
28. Thus, considered from any angle, the revision petitioner
cannot claim that the order of the Tribunal dismissing the
appeal preferred by the revision petitioner against the order of
10
the revisional authority suffers from error or giving rise to any
question of law, for it to be considered by this Court, in exercise
of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the APGST Act.
29. Thus, the TREVC.No.125 of 2004 is devoid of merit and is
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
TREVC.Nos.122, 124 & 126 of 2004
30. In view of the discussion made in TREVC.No.125 of 2004
and for the reasons as were stated therein, these TREVCs also
fail and are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
31. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed in the light of this final order.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
___________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
28th May, 2025
gra
11
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
TREVC. Nos. 122, 124, 125 & 126 of 2004
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
May, 2025
gra