False tax invoices can trigger statutory penalty on invoice tax shown, while brief natural justice objections may not bypass appeal.

A writ petition will not ordinarily be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy exists unless a substantive violation of natural justice is shown; brief treatment of objections, where notice and personal hearing were given, is insufficient to bypass appeal. Penalty under section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 applies to false tax invoices on the tax shown in the invoice, regardless of actual turnover or movement of goods. Where separate false invoices are issued, the penalty may apply cumulatively, reaching 400 per cent on the facts noted. The penalty challenge therefore failed, while unrelated remand directions under other provisions were left to be dealt with separately.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy on the ground of violation of natural justice; (ii) Whether penalty under section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was leviable on false invoices, and whether the quantum could reach 400 per cent.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy on the ground of violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The impugned order showed that the petitioner had been afforded opportunity to reply to the proposal and to appear personally. The objections were not merely reproduced, but were also dealt with, albeit briefly. A mere brief discussion, or omission to expressly advert to one or two objections, does not amount to breach of the principles of natural justice so as to justify bypassing the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected, and the writ remedy could not be invoked to avoid the alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was leviable on false invoices, and whether the quantum could reach 400 per cent.

Analysis: The factual finding that the petitioner issued and used false tax invoices without actual movement of goods was accepted. Section 55(2) fastens liability on the tax shown in the false invoice, not on actual turnover, and therefore the absence of real tax liability does not preclude a penalty. The provision applies to each tax invoice, and where two sets of invoices were issued, penalty at 200 per cent on each invoice could cumulatively result in 400 per cent.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 55(2) was upheld, including the aggregate quantum of 400 per cent.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty order failed in entirety, while the separate remand relating to penalties under other sub-sections was left to be dealt with independently.

Ratio Decidendi: A false tax invoice attracts statutory penalty on the tax shown in the invoice under section 55(2), irrespective of actual turnover or movement of goods, and the writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked where the alleged natural justice breach is not substantive.

---