9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The petitioner has complied with the conditional order. As a matter of fact, if the petitioner had been driven to the alternative remedy of appeal, he would have been called upon to pay 12.5% of the disputed tax - the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy has to be rejected. The only argument repeated in several places in the impugned order as well as in the counter affidavit is that the registered dealers in other States were non-existent persons and that they were only benamies for the petitioner. But the orders of assessment in respect of those persons are not claimed by the 1st respondent to be bogus or fabricated. Therefore, we fail to understand as to why a person would suffer an order of assessment and also pay Central Sales Tax in fictitious names or in benami names without a corresponding benefit. What that corresponding benefit was, could not be articulated by the respondents. The fact that the 1st respondent has exercised extra territorial jurisdiction even in respect of the dealers in the State of Telangana, despite the bifurcation, is very clear from the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther States were in fact received by the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh and sold in Andhra Pradesh. 5. Therefore, a pre-assessment show cause notice dated 13-02-2017 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that he is the real owner/resident/person in charge of all the three premises which were subjected to search. The show cause notice alleged that the petitioner purchased edible oil from manufacturing units in Andhra Pradesh in the names of dealers in other States who were non-existent and who were mere benamidars of the petitioner and that thereafter the petitioner resold the same in the State of Andhra Pradesh itself camouflaging the same as Inter-State sales against C Forms. According to the show cause notice, the petitioner paid tax at 2% against C Forms, thereby depriving the State of Andhra Pradesh, the difference of 3%. 6. The petitioner submitted his written objections on 10-5-2017 and attended the personal hearing through his representative on 14-7-2017. The petitioner claimed that he was merely a commission agent and a middleman bringing sellers and buyers together and that he did not handle any goods physically. The petitioner is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration certificates in the names of nonexistent persons in the neighbouring States of Andhra Pradesh, but kept all records in Andhra Pradesh and operated the Bank Accounts, Way Bills etc. from Andhra Pradesh. As per the impugned order, the petitioner purchased edible oils from five different manufacturers in the State of Andhra Pradesh, raised tax invoices in the names of benami dealers as consignees in the State of Maharashtra or the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. It is claimed in the impugned order that tax exemption is available to manufacturers in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and that the edible oil did not move to the other States. It is the case of the respondents that they were sold in Andhra Pradesh itself. 12. The entire theme of the song as tuned in the impugned order is that transactions which are labelled as Inter-State sales, finally ended up as Intra-State sales in Andhra Pradesh. But it is admitted in the impugned order that seller benamidars paid tax at 2% on the strength of Form C declarations. 13. Therefore, in essence the entire order proceeds on the basis that the State of Andhra Pradesh suffered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by manufacturers/importers in Andhra Pradesh to outside dealers. This is to the extent of ₹ 56 Crores. This turnover is attributed to six sellers in Andhra Pradesh. Out of those six persons, who are named as sellers in Annexure-I, two are from the State of Telangana. The 1st respondent is an officer of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The impugned order was passed after the bifurcation of the State. Therefore, he had no jurisdiction to subject the turnovers of these two entities. 17. Coming to the second part of the total turnover, it relates to Inter-State sales made by persons who are dealers in the State of Telangana and who have reported the same to their Assessing Authorities in the State of Telangana. This amount totals to ₹ 38,69,10,220/-. A part of it viz., ₹ 23,71,35,160/- is a turnover of a company by name Manjunatha Impex India Private Limited, Hyderabad. Admittedly, this company is a registered dealer in the State of Telangana and they have suffered a final order of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on 05-01-2015 in respect of the very same turnover of ₹ 23,19,71,985/-. 18. Therefore, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in other States were non-existent persons and that they were only benamies for the petitioner. But the orders of assessment in respect of those persons are not claimed by the 1st respondent to be bogus or fabricated. Therefore, we fail to understand as to why a person would suffer an order of assessment and also pay Central Sales Tax in fictitious names or in benami names without a corresponding benefit. What that corresponding benefit was, could not be articulated by the respondents. The fact that the 1st respondent has exercised extra territorial jurisdiction even in respect of the dealers in the State of Telangana, despite the bifurcation, is very clear from the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded back for a fresh consideration. 22. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded back to the 1st respondent for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The 1st respondent should give a personal hearing to the petitioner and take note of the above observations and then pass fresh orders within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
