D.S. Prasad, Chairman - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed against appellate orders of A.D.C. (CT), Guntur in Appeal No. 98/97 -98 dated 16.12.1997. Following are the facts leading to filing of this appeal. The appellant is a registered dealer carrying on business in pesticides and fertilizers at Patnam Bazar, Guntur on retail basis. During the assessment year 1995 -96 the appellant showed a turnover of Rs. 2,01,75,460/ - under APGST Act and claimed exemption of Rs. 1,99,89,055/ - as second sales made within the State. The assessing officer the C.T.O., Patnam Bazar, Guntur after scrutiny of the records held that net turnover of Rs. 1,89,410/ - is liable to be taxed under APGST Act and exempted an amount of Rs. 68,710/ - from the total turnover under APGST Act. But however the assessing officer was of the opinion that this amount of Rs. 68,710/ - is liable to be taxed under Central Sales Tax Act treating the transactions covering that amount as inter -State Sales. In fact, the amount of Rs. 68,710/ - is covered by two transactions and under both these transactions, the assessee has made only intra -State sales having sold the goods to Tandur in State of Andhra Pradesh. But however according to the appellant in the way bill register, a mistake has crept in showing as if the goods have been despatched to Belgaum of Karnataka State instead of Tandur. Realising this mistake, the appellant produced original L.R. showing that goods were really sent to Tandur only together with copies of invoices. However, the assessing authority has not taken the said documents into consideration and finally held that the goods as having been sent to Gulbarga of Karnataka State and treated them as inter -State sales and that on the ground that the appellant failed to produce necessary 'C forms assessed the said amount to tax and raised a tax demand demanding the appellant to pay tax.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the C.T.O., Patnam Bazar, the appellant filed an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, C.T., Guntur. But however the appellate authority in his appeal also opined that these two transactions covering Rs. 68,710/ - represented inter -State sales and the documents produced by the appellant did not show that the goods were sold to farmers at Tandur area within our State and consequently he dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same dismissal of the appeal, the appellant preferred this appeal to this Tribunal with the following grounds. The impugned order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case and hence liable to set -aside. The competent authority has not considered the fact that these two sales Were made within the State to local farmers. Without valid reasons be rejected the evidence produced by the appellant, establishing the facts that goods were despatched to Tandur and sales were made to Tandur merchants, consequently the sales which are within the State represent the character of second sales and are entitled for exemption from tax. Therefore, the appellant prayed that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in appeal 98/97 -98, dated 16.12.97 be set aside.
(3.) THE State Representative opposed the appeal and contended that, the appellant failed to establish that he sold the goods only within the State because the entries shown the original LR showed that the goods were delivered at Gulbarga, Karnataka State. The subsequent documents produced by the appellant cannot be relied on as their authenticity is not established.;