Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/Sveekay Oil ... vs State Of Ap Rep.By Sr Before Stat 3 ... on 22 August, 2022

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                                   AND

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU


                TAX REVISION CASE No. 265 of 2003

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)


1.    Heard Sri. S. Suri Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for Respondent.

2. The present Revision is filed under Section 22(1) of the Andhra

Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, ['A.P.G.S.T. Act'] by the

Assessee, namely, M/s. Veekay Oil Products, represented by its

Proprietor Sri. V. Pitchaiah, against the State of Andhra Pradesh,

impugning the Order, dated 10.03.2003, in T.A. No. 682 of 1998 on

the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,

dismissing the Appeal while confirming the Order of the Appellate

Deputy Commissioner [CT], Guntur, who in turn confirmed the

Order of Assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer,

Piduguralla, for the Assessment years 1991-92.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

i) The Petitioner herein was a dealer in Sunflower Seed, Oil and

Sunflower Oil Cake; doing business in the name and style of

M/s. Veekay Oil Products, Piduguralla, and an Assessee on the

file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla.

ii) The Deputy Commercial Officer, Piduguralla, assessed the

dealer [Petitioner] for the Assessment Year 1991-92 through its

proceedings, dated 19.10.1992, on a net turnover

@ 1,96,980/-. It is said that, the sales to an extent of 301580

kilograms were not reported, through monthly returns. All

these transactions were not considered for the assessment by

the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla. Further, the

Assessee [Petitioner] had not filed the information regarding the

usage of waybills, for which sales were obtained from the

Department.

iii) Taking into consideration the information furnished, a Notice

was issued to the dealer [Petitioner] on 28.05.1994, which was

served on 31.05.1994. In the Notice, the dealer [Petitioner] was

requested to produce books of accounts for the year 1991-92

along with details of purchases and sales of oil and cake.

iv) In response to the Notice, the dealer [Petitioner] addressed a

letter, dated 14.06.1994, stating that the Notice was vague and

the contents mentioned therein were not true and did not refer

to Petitioner's business. It was also stated that, the contents

mentioned in the Notice do not attract the provisions of

A.P.G.S.T. Act. It was further stated that, the dealer [Petitioner]

has already informed the Commercial Tax Officer that the

records of the dealer [Petitioner] were destroyed in fire accident

and requested the Commercial Tax Officer for supply of copies

of waybills, invoices, delivery challans etc., enabling him to give

a detailed reply.

v) Taking into consideration the request of the dealer [Petitioner],

a Notice was issued on 18.06.1994 requesting him to appear at

Commercial Tax Officer's Office on or before 30.06.1994 and

obtain the information required. It is said that, without

obtaining any information, as required by him, from the Office

of the Commercial Tax Officer, the dealer [Petitioner]

approached the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition, which

was disposed of with a direction that, 'the Petitioner be given

the facility of inspection of the relevant documents in the office

of the respondent on 08.07.1994 and thereafter permitted him

to make an application giving particulars of the documents

which he requires.'

vi) In compliance of the Order, copies of the documents were

supplied to the dealer on 15.07.1994. Thereafter, the dealer

filed objections on 21.07.1994. Taking into consideration the

objections filed by the dealer [Petitioner], and other facts of the

case, the Commercial Tax Officer, issued a Notice on

18.01.1995, proposing best judgment assessment under

Section 14(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, on an escaped turnover, for

the assessment year 1991-92, which reads as under:

"The above net turnover was proposed to be taxed as follows:

           1. Sunflower Seed     : Rs. 4985600.00 @ 4%
           2. Sunflower Oil      : Rs. 5608710.00 @ 4%+1½ % + 10% SC

3. Sunflower Oil Cake : Rs. 2181000.00 @ 4%+1½ % + 10% SC Total : Rs. 12775310.00"

vii) It is stated that, the notice issued, proposing best judgment,

was served on 21.09.1995. The dealer [Petitioner] filed its

objections through a letter, dated 06.03.1995, which were in

addition to the objections already filed in the letter dated

21.07.1994.

viii) Considering the material available on record, it was held that,

the estimation made in the Show Cause Notice for determining

the escaped turnover is just and proper. Accordingly, the

turnover proposed in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed

and the dealer [Petitioner] was assessed to the best of judgment

on escaped gross and net turnovers, for the year 1991-92,

under Section 14(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Assailing the same,

an Appeal came to be preferred, which was dismissed.

Challenging the same, the present Tax Revision Case, came to

be filed.

4. Though, various grounds are raised, Sri. S. Suri Babu, learned

Counsel for the Petitioner, fairly submits that, the case on hand is

covered by the Judgment of this Court in T.R.C. Nos.264 of 2003

and 23 of 2004, which was filed against the Common Order in T.A.

Nos. 684, 683 of 1998 & 682 of 1998 [present T.R.C.].

5. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, submits

that, since the case on hand is covered by the Judgment of this

Court in T.R.C. Nos.264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, the present T.R.C.

has to be rejected.

6. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to Para 7 of the grounds of

revision i.e., "Question of Law" formulated, is as under:

(i) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in accepting the extracts obtained from the check posts without any corroborative evidence in support thereof?

(ii) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in affirming the estimation of turnovers with reference to sales with no corresponding consumption of power?

(iii) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in denying an opportunity to the Petitioner for cross- examination of witnesses?

7. As stated earlier, the above "Question of Law" was fairly

discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 264 of

2003 and 23 of 2004, which was dismissed on 07.04.2015,

confirming the judgment of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and

the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The relevant paragraph of the

Judgment of the Division Bench is as under:

"6) The cross-examination is not as of right for even no worth material placed much less any case made out to afford opportunity in cross examination to elicit any material required for consideration. In fact, from the above questions of law, claimed there is no question of law involved practically. No doubt so far as the estimation of turnovers on the basis of consumption of electricity is concerned, it is only one of the permissible modes and that too when there is no other evidence and only on showing there is any direct nexus between the consumption of electricity and the turn over, without which that cannot be taken as a basis as held by this Court in Venkata Ramana Stone Crushers Co., V. State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, said contention has no legs to stand in the absence of any material to substantiate, and that too, when the same is not the basis by itself. Coming to the limitation aspect raised when there is a suppression of the

turnover, it is the extended limitation that is applicable, that also meted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the appellate authority. Importantly the assessing authority when taken every possible means to prove the nature of transactions and there were suppression of the estimated turnovers by Nil return or by return showing absolutely low turnover and the same was detected on cross verification from the extracts of the check post and also information from the banks and purchasing dealers which are very clearly discussed in corroboration of one to the other to substantiate with reasons to the best judgment assessment, that too after supply of all the copies and even when the assessee (revision petitioner) failed to deny any of the transactions through the books of accounts, weigh bills and other documentary evidence, but for by a stray sentence of all are as if fake or untrue, that is not suffice. Furthermore, the assessee who obtained weigh bills from the assessing authority failed to produce the triplicate copies and render account for its use when called for and came up with a plea of records destroyed as if in a fire accident with no any basis even to say much less to substantiate. On the other hand the assessment order clearly speaks with reasons from what is discussed supra that was confirmed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of said version is untrue from the recorded evidence, but intentionally for evasion of tax by filing Nil returns or returns with utterly low turnover, there is for this Court while sitting in revision against the impugned order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the two respective revisions nothing to interfere.