TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remedy under section 31 of the VAT Act read with section 9(2) of the CST Act. In such circumstances this court does not, ordinarily, exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. At the time of preliminary arguments on August 31, 2010, the counsel, however, made the point to deviate from the normal rule. As the counsel is right that the case involves only verification of the file as to whether the petitioner submitted certificates in form C to claim concessional rate of sales tax, we summoned the records from the offices of CTO I and CTO II. A perusal of the files (nay thorough verification) by the Bench-after permitting the special counsel for the State and the petitioner; unveils a shockingly sorrow state of affairs which, prima facie, appear to have been a fait accompli to help the assessee. Therefore, we summoned the officers and, on their request, permitted them to file their affidavits. They filed counter-affidavits. We heard the matter before, and after, affidavits were filed by the two respondents. The synoptic introduction of the case as above can be better appreciated by the analysis of the case and counter case including various files produced before this court. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nover of Rs. 19,38,034 based on the counterfoils of three declaration forms available with the petitioner. We have the counter-affidavit of Ms. G. Sumathi, the incumbent CTO II. We also have on record the counter-affidavit of Sri K. Venugopala Rao, the officer who held the position as CTO I during the period from August 11, 2009 to May 14, 2010. On record, is available the deposition of Md. Anwar Pasha (described as memo filed by him), the officer holding the position of CTO I from May 15, 2010. Before dealing with the contentious issue(s), it is important to sum up the contents of these three affidavits. Sri Md. Anwar Pasha admits that, on the petitioner's request by a communication dated January 8, 2010, the assessment file was transferred to CTO II duly informing him that the assessments for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, under the CST Act, are pending. Then he refers to a letter dated April 5, 2010 which allegedly emanated from CTO I addressed to CTO II. For ready reference, we may quote paragraph 2 from his deposition, which reads as under: "It is submitted that during the month of April, 2010, the petitioner approached the office of the 2nd respondent stating that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he writ petition, this respondent instructed his staff to trace the said C forms. They could not trace them out. The record assistant who received the C forms was transferred to Miryalaguda. He was requested to go-over to office of this respondent to help this respondent to trace out the said C forms. After a thorough search they were found in another file and are now submitted to this honourable court. On further enquiry with the said record assistant as to why the acknowledgement/receipt of C forms was not entered in the inward register, it was brought to my notice that they were kept in the E1 and E2 register, as the letter dated August 13, 2007 contained a request for issuance of El forms. This respondent now understands that the record assistant after receiving the letter dated August 13, 2007 kept the same in the E1 register instead of entering the same in the inward register and keeping them in assessment file. Hence, they could not be traced out earlier. The delay in tracing out the said forms is neither wilful nor wanton but only under the circumstances stated above." The CTO II, Ms. G. Sumathi admits that the petitioner's file was transferred to her jurisdiction with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner disclosed CST sales during 2006-07 of Rs. 97,75,848. This includes inter-State sales against C forms (Rs. 82,55,119). After scrutiny, CTO II issued a notice dated July 10, 2009 informing the petitioner that, as required under rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957 (the CST Rules, for brevity), C forms are required to be filed within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration relates, and they were requested to file the C forms. In spite of sufficient time, they were not submitted. A show-cause notice dated February 9, 2010 was issued proposing to levy 10 per cent sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 39,21,125 which is not covered by C forms, and Rs. 3,45,431 towards deemed export sales not covered by H forms. The authorized signatory submitted a letter dated February 15, 2010 informing that they are verifying the records, and requested time till February 26, 2010. On the same day, he Managing Director of the petitioner sent a letter bearing No. STPPL/ Form C/2009-10 to CTO I enclosing five C forms in relation to inter-State sales for the fiscal year in question. These are not the sales effected by the petitioner to M/s. National Traders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t they were found misplaced and, therefore, they were not enclosed with the assessment file for 2006-07, and that efforts were being made to trace the C forms. The documents and communications referred to hereinabove are found in the assessment file for 2006-07. Curiously the letter bearing Rc No. El/ 29/2009 dated January 8, 2010 by CTO I to CTO II transferring as many as ten files which include VAT and CST files is not found in any files. The file bearing No. El/29/2009 containing 51 pages including the letter at page Nos. 39 and 41, also shows that the files were acknowledged by CTO II on January 29, 2010. One expects all the files which stood transferred from Bhongir office to Vengalaraonagar office to contain the communication from the CTO I transferring the files. We have perused eleven assessment files (including one registration record) submitted to the court by CTO II without any success to find the communication referred to hereinabove. The inward register, for the period from December 31, 2009 to September 9, 2010, is also available in the record. The communication of CTO I, transferring the files to CTO II, is also not entered. At page 15 of the inward register, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16 pages). This deal with the request of the petitioner's authorized signatory to send C forms to CTO II and the office copy of the letter, dated April 5, 2010 by CTO I to CTO II informing that the C forms were acknowledged and they were misplaced in the office. As a first step before considering the merits of the petitioner's case, we would like to make the following observations based on a thorough perusal of the assessment file for the year 2006-07, and the records submitted by CTO I, before drawing appropriate inference. (a) The petitioner submitted fifteen (15) monthly returns (some of them with delay) before the CTO I under rule 15 of the CST Rules in CST VI for 2006-07. In the returns for April, May, June, July and August, the entire turnover of intra and inter-State sales was shown as a cumulative amount. On these forms in CST VI, there is not even the office seal. In the return for September, an amount of Rs. 14,15,414 was declared as intersate sales turnover. On these also, there is no office seal. As per the eturns, the petitioner effected inter-State sales in the months of October (Rs. 6,01,407), November (Rs. 17,27,929), December (Rs. 11,20,858) and January, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s E1 or E2 shall be furnished to the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declarations or the certificate relates to. Therefore the petitioner was requested to file declarations in forms C/F within three (3) days. There was no response from the petitioner nor any representation of the petitioner to CTO I clarifying about the submission of C forms and requisition for furnishing of forms E1 and E2. At that stage, the CTO was very firm that C forms evidencing the transactions with M/s. National Traders and M/s. ASA Paper Stores, Chennai, were not available. Curiously, in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Venugopal, present CTO I, an averment is made on oath that they were misplaced in the office. If really, they were misplaced, there would not have been any necessity to issue the notice dated June 10, 2009. (e) About two months after receiving the notice dated July 10, 2009 from CTO referred to supra, the Managing Director of the petitioner addressed a letter dated September 19, 2009 requesting CTO I to transfer all assessment files to CTO II. Necessary form VAT 112 was enclosed for the purpose. When the CST assessment file is the ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice was received by a representative of the petitioner on February 10, 2010. In reply, the petitioner submitted a letter No. STPPL/Form C/2009-10, dated February 15, 2010 enclosing four C forms relating to the sales made to M/s. Shree Packers, Excel Packagings, Bhargav Packagings, Mano Packers and Latha Industries. The two sales made to Chennai purchasers are not even referred to therein. After receiving the response, CTO II passed final assessment order dated March 12, 2010 which is impugned in the writ petition. (h) In the writ petition a plea is taken that three numbers of C forms covering a turnover of Rs. 19,38,034 were submitted to CTO I. Presumably to make up for the petitioner, CTO II alleges that after receiving the impugned assessment order dated March 12, 2010, the petitioner submitted a letter dated March 31, 2010 enclosing five xerox copies of duplicate counterfoils of C forms allegedly submitted to CTO I. These were ignored as they The Supreme Court further observed (paras 55 and 56): "55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a thorough enquiry. competent authority. As we are of the view that a thorough enquiry should be conducted, we refrain from making further observations which may tend to prejudice the enquiry. We also observe that nothing precludes the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes or the Government of Andhra Pradesh to transfer these officials who acted in a manner subverting public interest. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India [1998] 1 SCC 226; AIR 1998 SC 889, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the seven principles of public life from Lord Nolan's Committee Report on "Standards in Public Life". "Selflessness Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. Integrity Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties. Objectivity In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for reward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other countries. . ." Of late, the atmosphere is thick everywhere with talk of large scale corruption in public offices. This is a bane of democracy. No country can survive for long if the public officeholders (who are negligible in number in comparison with the population) become corrupt. Rampant corruption may lead to serious consequences. We are not saying this with reference to this case only. But when the court is concerned with a case of this nature, not dealing with it firmly is not proper. Therefore, we summoned all the files and examined them thoroughly. The original C forms which are allegedly now traced due to the search made by the record assistant (Junior Assistant) have also been compiled as a file being A/31/2010 of the office of CTO II. On verification, we are convinced that even to a naked eye, the signature of the Director in the C form does not tally with one another. We have our own doubts about the C forms. This also requires a thorough enquiry. In the result, for the above reasons, we issue the following directions, pending further orders: (a) The ....