M/S. Ramcharan Oil Industries vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2583 Tel

         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

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

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

2001 (123) STC 245 PSK,J& LNA,J TREVC.No.10 of 2006

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

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