VENKATESWARA RICE MILL NIDUBROLU CONTRACTOR Vs. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER EVASION GUNTUR
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARA RICE MILL, NIDUBROLU, CONTRACTOR M/S. BHUSHAYYA, P.SITARAMAYYA
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (EVASION) GUNTUR
Click here to view full judgement.
Obul Reddi, J. -
(1.).The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing
the order of the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Guntur in O.R.13-65/
66 dated 4th December, 1965 and for refund of a sum of Rs. 4,000 collected by the
said Officer from the petitioner-firm.
(2.). Mr. Bhaskara Rao appearing for the petitioner contended that the Special
Commercial Tax Officer acted in excess of his jurisdiction in collecting Rs. 3,000
as if there is an evasion of tax under section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh General
Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) and for failure to maintain correct
complete accounts as required under section 25 of the Act; that he could have
proceeded against the petitioner only under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) section 32
of the Act and that in this case the Special Commercial Tax Officer has not only
acted under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 32 but also purported to act
under Clause (a) without realising the fact that there was neither failure to pay,
nor evasion of, any tax recoverable under the Act.
(3.)It would appear that the Special Commercial Tax Officer inspected the premises
of the petitioner's mill, and conducted verification of the stocks and found from
the stock verification that the accounts maintained by the petitioner's firm were
incorrect. He then issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why
action should not be taken against him by launching a prosecution under section 31
for contravention of the provisions of section 25 of the Act. The special
Commercial Tax Officer also mentioned in the notice to show cause why the stocks verified
by him should not be confiscated. On receipt of the notice it is the case of the
petitioner that they were forced into compounding the offence by making them pay
Rs.1,000 as compounding fee and Rs. 3,000 purporting to be the tax payable by
them Thereupon the Special Commercial Tax Officer made an order which
may be usefully extracted:-
"The millers have suppressed the purchases of paddy of 185 bags.
Thus it is proved that they have wilfully acted in contravention of the provisions
of the Act in order to fraudulently evade payment of tax by failing to
maintain correct and complete accounts as required under the provisions ot
section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Thus thev have committed an offence under section 30 of the Andhra
Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for which they are liable for prosecution
under section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. On a
notice being issued to the millers to show cause as to why prosecution proceedings
should not be launched under section 31 of the Act, they have expressed in writing
admitting the offence and offered to get the offence compounded in a sum of
Rs. 1,000(paid in Challan No.177 dated 6th December, 1965) I find them guilty
and by accepting the offer of Rs.1,000 as compounding fees and Rs.3,000 as
Tax I hereby compound the offence under section 32 of the Andhra
Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.