9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF A.P., REP. BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS M/S. JAI SREE ENTERPRISES, VIJAYAWADA [ 2024 (5) TMI 720 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , this Court has held that the revision does not lie on a question of fact. It lies only if the question of law has either not been decided or has been erroneously decided. So there is no dispute on the proposition that under Section 22 of the AP GST Act, revision would not lie on a question of fact. In Eswara Oil Company [ 1983 (3) TMI 241 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , the STAT Tribunal therein found that the petitioner therein had not actually produced the bill said to have been falsely obtained nor did he file any declaration in Form E. In view thereof it was held that the penalty under Section 7-A(2) could not be imposed. The said case is of no help to petitioner as in the present case the petitioner produced false bills and claimed exemption on part of the turnover as second sale - In South India Agencies [ 1988 (6) TMI 301 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , it was held that action, under Section 7-A(2) of the Act, 1957 has to be taken by the Assessing Authority on detecting such issue or production . The sub-section itself specifies the starting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respond. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer (RVEO), Kurnool on 05.11.1996. During the course of such inspection, the purchase bills produced by the petitioner for the year 1995-96, towards the secondary transactions of polythene bags from M/s. Modi Plastic Industries, Hyderabad and M/s. Sundar Plastics, Hyderabad, disclosed certain bills for certain amount. On cross verification, with the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) it was confirmed that M/s. Modi Plastic Industries, Hyderabad and M/s. Sundar Plastics, Hyderabad were not registered dealers on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Department and their registration numbers printed on the sale invoices related to different company i.e., M/s. Ramakrishna Tea Trading Company, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. It also came to light that sale invoices were not supported by waybills, vehicle numbers used for transporting the goods and mode of payment. The invoices issued by M/s. Sundar Plastics, Hyderabad were unsigned. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the CTO proposed to tax on the turnover of Rs. 28,62,750/- by a pre-assessment show cause notice issued on 17.09.1997, sent through regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Assessing Authority. He submitted that the recovery of purchase bills at the time of the inspection by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool would not attract Section 7-A(2). He submitted that the petitioner did not claim any exemption. He also submitted that the petitioner did not produce false bills for claiming any exemption. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in M/s. Aparna Trading Company vs. State of Andhra Pradesh TRC. No. 72/1989, dated 16.01.1990, Eswara Oil Company vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983) 63 STC 340, Mahaveer Bangles vs. Commercail Tax Officer, Tarapet, Vijayawada (1993) 17 APSTJ 98, Konatham Bhaskar Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 63 STC 297 (AP), Dinesh Dal Mills vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) 19 APSTJ 132 Vizovvolie Chakasang vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (INT), Vijayawada and others 2011 SCC Online AP 1152. Submission of the learned Government Pleader:- 10. Sri Shreyas Reddy, learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner claimed exemption on the part of turnover, in his returns, as second sale. The petitioner was not entitled for such exemption. He submitted that the petitioner did not subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing authority that the goods sold or purchased as the case may be, have already suffered tax under this Act. (2) Where a dealer issues or produces a false bill, voucher, declaration, certificate or other document with a view to support or make any claim that a transaction of sale or purchase effected by him or any other dealer, is not liable to be taxed or is liable to be taxed at reduced rate, the assessing authority shall on detecting such issue or production, direct the dealer issuing or producing such document to pay as penalty:--- i. in the case of first such detection, three times the tax due in respect of such transaction; and ii. in the case of a second or subsequent detection, five times the tax due in respect of such transaction: Provided that before issuing any direction for the payment of the penalty under this section, the assessing authority shall give to the dealer an opportunity of making representation against the levy of such penalty. 15. Therefore provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7-A gets attracted, where a dealer issues or produces a false bill, voucher, declaration, certificate or other document with a view to support or make any claim that a tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that the petitioner raised any such ground that he did not produce any bill etc., of the nature contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 7-A. 18. In view of what we have noted above, from the record, we cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not produce any false bill, or did not claim exemption as second sale on some part of the turnover. 19. In any case, if the petitioner produced or not, the bills etc., as contemplated under sub-section (2) is a question of fact. The submission raises factual controversy. 20. Based on the aforesaid argument, we cannot also accept the submission of the petitioner s counsel that Section 7-A(2) was not attracted. 21. In the exercise of the revision jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, it is settled that the revision does not lie on a question of fact. 22. Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 reads as under:-- 22. Revision by Special Appellate Tribunal:- (1) Within ninety days from the date on which an order under sub-section (4) of section 21 was communicated to him, the dealer or the authority prescribed in this behalf may prefer a petition to the Speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any dispute on the proposition of law that the power of revision is open to be exercised by this court only when the Appellate Tribunal has either erroneously decided a Question of Law or has failed to decide any Question of Law. 58. Erroneous has been defined in Black Law Dictionary as under: Incorrect; inconsistent with the law or the facts. Erroneous judgment is defined as under: A judgment issued by a court with jurisdiction to issue it, but containing an improper application of law. This type of judgment is not void, but can be corrected by a trial court while the court retains plenary jurisdiction, or in a direct appeal. 59. It is clear that an order can be termed as erroneous if it is not in accordance with law. An order which suffers from an error of law or even on facts would be erroneous. The order which decides a question of law, not as per law or contrary to law, ignoring the legal provisions or wrongly interpreting the legal provisions would be an erroneous order. A revision under Section 22 (1) would lie if the question of law has been decided erroneously. It may not be on erroneous question of fact. Present is a case of erroneously deciding a question of law. It ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anguage employed in sub-section (2), to import the theory propounded by Mr. Srinivasa Murthy. The analogy of section 14 has no application at all. Section 14 provides a period of limitation for reopening an assessment and for levying penalties, but that is for its own purposes. As pointed out by this Court in Eswara Oil Company v. State of A.P. [1983] 63 STC 340 , levy of penalties under section 14 of the Act and the levy of penalty under section 7-A are distinct proceedings, based on distinct grounds. We see no warrant or justification for importing the period of limitation prescribed in section 14 into section 7-A, more so when sub-section (2) of section 7-A clearly says that such proceedings shall be taken on detecting the issuance or production of a false bill/voucher, or the document, as the case may be. . 29. As is evident, Eswara Oil Company (supra) was also considered. 30. In South India Agencies (supra), the petitioner therein filed A2 returns disclosing the total turnover, within which he claimed a specified turnover to be exempted. This exempted turnover comprised second sale to certain extent. When a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner therein, under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
