HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
TAX REVISION CASE NO.10 OF 2006
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Sri A.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri K.Raji Reddy learned senior counsel appearing for Sri
V.Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Commercial Tax for respondent.
2. The present revision case has been filed assailing the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.559 of 1999, dated 26.10.2004. By the said impugned order, the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order passed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad, dated 02.02.1999 was rejected. The whole dispute resolve around the rice-bran crude oil purchased by the petitioner one from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other purchased from within the State of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the provision of APGST Rules, the petitioner-assessee was required to maintain two separate accounts in respect of the crude oil purchased by the petitioner from outside the state and from within the state separately under Rule 45(7) of the APGST Rules.
PSK,J& LNA,J TREVC.No.10 of 2006 2
3. On the allegation of the petitioner not maintaining the crude oil separately, show-cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner gave his reply on 23.12.1998 and in the reply, petitioner took a categorical stand that they are maintaining separate storage tanks and separate manufacturing units for storage and processing of rice-bran oil purchased from outside the state and within the state. However, three inspections were conducted by the respondent authorities, first by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement) on 14.05.1993 and second by the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) on 24.07.1993 and yet another by the Commercial Tax Officer, Maharajgunj Circle, on 19.02.1994.
4. All the three inspections gave the same report of the petitioner stocking the crude oil only in the tank No.13, both in respect of crude-oil purchased from outside the state and for the crude oil purchased within the state. In addition, in the course of the inspection, it was also found that there were certain discrepancies detected in the course of the inspection so far as the stock available in the tank and with the quantity reflected in the stock registered maintained by the petitioner. It was in this factual backdrop, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had not granted the benefit of exemption to the petitioner and was asked to pay the taxes on the entire turnover.
PSK,J& LNA,J TREVC.No.10 of 2006 3
5. Perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), dated 02.02.1999 and also the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 26.10.2004 would give the clear indication so far as the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case is concerned, particularly, in respect of the fact that the entire crude-oil purchased from outside the state and within the state were also stored in one particular tank in contravention to requirement under APGST Rules stand un-rebutted and there is no material available on record to disbelieve or disprove the said finding by the two authorities is concerned. Moreover, the finding so recorded by the two authorities also is in the teeth of there being a categorical denial by the petitioner to the show-cause notice issued and in the reply to the show-cause notice that they are furnished on 23.12.1998.
6. As regards, the judgment in the case of Faruk Anvar Company vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1, which has been relied upon by the petitioner, the said case is distinguishable on its facts itself for the simple reason that, it was a case, where the oil purchased from the registered dealers earlier refined and was again sent for refining to a place outside the state, unlike the facts in the instant case. Thus, the ratio laid down in the said 1 2001 (123) STC 245 PSK,J& LNA,J TREVC.No.10 of 2006 4 judgment cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula and in the facts of the present case.
7. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case, we do not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for interference with the impugned order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. This Court also does not find any substantial question of law made out by the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the Revision case is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ P.SAM KOSHY,J __________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 21 .09.2023 Ktm/kkm PSK,J& LNA,J TREVC.No.10 of 2006 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TAX REVISION CASE NO.10 OF 2006 Date: 21.09.2023 Ktm/kkm