S.ANANDA REDDY, J. - (1.) This tax revision case is by the dealer directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30-11-2000 passed in TA No.335 of 1998. The assessment relates for the assessment year 1996-97 from April to September, 1996 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) The dealer is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic articles. The assessee claimed for the assessment year in question exemption in respect of the turnover representing the alleged sale of ball point pens, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Though on appeal, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remitted the matter, the assessing authority again confirmed the denial of exemption claimed by the assessee. Thereupon the assessee appealed again to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and to the Tribunal unsuccessfully. Therefore, the present revision.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the dealer contended that the assessee is a manufacturer of ball point pens, which are sold to its sister concern, which in tern exports the same to the customers in Mumbai. It is stated that the documents stamped at the check-post proves that the assessee had manufactured and sold to its customers ball-point pens, which are exempted from levy of tax. The learned Counsel contended that the Department conducted some enquiries behind the petitioner/dealer and basing on such material without supplying any copies of such reports, took adverse inference and decided the matter against the assessee, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. According to the learned Counsel, inspite of repeated demands even after the matter was remitted by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the assessing authority did not provide the copies of such reports that are used by the Department to hold against the assessee. Such denial of opportunity in not providing copies of the material collected by the Department behind the assessee/dealer is illegal and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel even otherwise also contended that the petitioner had imported the plastic granules from Mumbai from the same parties to whom the manufactured ball point pens were sold. The imported granules were utilised for the manufacture of- ball point pens. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the Department to deny the case of the petitioner/dealer. The learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ms, Machilipatnam Consumer Co-operative Society v. State of A.P., 1 APSTJ 218,. in support of his contention that the assessment framed utilising certain material collected behind the assessee, without providing copies of the same and therefore sought for setting aside the order of the Tribunal and to remit the matter to the assessing authority for giving an opportunity to the assessee, not only for supplying copies of the reports that are collected by the Department but also to give an opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary material to support its case.;