9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-12 dated March 29, 2012 for the year 2005-06 whereunder the first respondent, in exercise of power under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956 read with section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 revised the assessment made by the second respondent on June 18, 2008. The petitioner contends that the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is a co-operative society engaged in the business of sale of butter, ghee and cream, etc., among other products. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. During the assessment year 2005-06, the petitioner had effected inter-State sales of ghee. The second respondent after verifying all the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TIN Number allotted by the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department in that State, that such authorities have furnished the statutory C forms duly filled in with the seal of the issuing authority in Hindi and therefore the first respondent is not justified in treating the said C forms issued by the buyers of the petitioner as not genuine. It also contended that it had obtained the C forms bonafidely and therefore the first respondent is not justified in disregarding them by levying tax at the higher rate of tax of 12.5 per cent. It submitted that it had enquired with the concerned officials and also the purchasing dealer who in fact had sent a letter dated June 3, 2010 issued and duly signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle V, Bho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the first respondent has not even enquired with the assessing authority of the purchasing dealer with regard to the genuineness of the letter dated June 3, 2010 issued by them and prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Raji Reddy and Sri P. Balaji Varma, standing counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the first respondent and the documents filed by the petitioner in support of its case. It is clear from the material on record that the petitioner had enclosed the letter dated June 3, 2010 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle V, Bhopal, to his reply dated December 26, 2011 addressed to the first respondent in response to the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
