VENKATESWARA RICE MILL NIDUBROLU CONTRACTOR Vs. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER EVASION GUNTUR
LAWS(APH)-1969-11-9
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 07,1969

VENKATESWARA RICE MILL, NIDUBROLU, CONTRACTOR M/S. BHUSHAYYA, P.SITARAMAYYA Appellant
VERSUS
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (EVASION) GUNTUR Respondents

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."
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.