TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 4 appeared before the first respondent and requested to release the goods bringing to his notice that the petitioner is a registered dealer and that the transactions in question are duly recorded in the books of accounts and the goods were being carried accompanied by all necessary documents. It is alleged that the first respondent insisted upon payment of tax at five per cent. of the value of goods together with two times penalty alleging that the consignments were not covered by proper documents. As the goods are subject to natural decay, the petitioner was constrained to pay the tax and penalty as demanded and got the goods released. Subsequently, these two writ petitions came to be filed on April 26, 2012 seeking a declaration that the action of respondents 1 to 3 in collecting the tax and penalty is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is alleged in the writ petition that nothing was communicated to the petitioner as to how the petitioner was made liable to pay the tax and penalty and that even the documents that were allegedly not produced at the time of check of the vehicles when they were intercepted at Hindupur were not specified either by respondent No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 1. On production of receipt of the said payment, respondent No. 3 by release order dated December 29, 2011 requested the Station House Officer, Hindupur, to release the vehicles and accordingly the vehicles were released on December 29, 2011. Thus, it is contended that the allegations in the writ petitions are untenable. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the decisions of this court in Ambica Lamp House, Rajahmundry v. Commercial Tax Officer (Int)-I Enforcement, Hyderabad [2005] 142 STC 551 (AP) [FB]; [2004] 40 APSTJ 56 and Goodhealth Agro Tech. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Mahaboobnagar [1996] 102 STC 226 (AP); [1996] 22 APSTJ 78 vehemently contended that the impugned action of respondents 1 and 3 in collecting the tax and penalty without there being an order of assessment is arbitrary and illegal and therefore the amounts collected together with interest shall be directed to be refunded to the petitioner. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents 1, 2 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e offence, wherever the dealer comes forward with such an offer. (iv) The judgments in S.R. Traders & Bhavani Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1994] 92 STC 626 (AP); [(1993) 17 APSTJ 125, Kaki Butchi Raju Son v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 96 STC 634 (AP); [1994] 19 APSTJ 19, Badrinath Oil Company v. Asst., Commissioner [1995] 21 APSTJ 28, Bharat Metals v. Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (DS) [1999] 112 STC 63 (AP); [1998] 27 APSTJ 72, and Sri Lakshmi Venkata Raghava Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer (Int. & Enforcement Wing (W.P. No. 10668 of 1993 decided on September 8, 1993), cannot be said to be the authorities for the proposition that the inspecting officials of the Commercial Tax Department are empowered to pass orders compounding the alleged offences on the same day of inspection and to collect the amount specified in such orders, on the same day. (v) After completion of the assessment, it is open to the Department to issue a demand notice along with assessment order by providing time as contemplated under the provisions of the Act for collection of the tax. (vi) If any penalty proceedings are initiated by the competent authorities,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the cotton seed oil from Andhra Pradesh to Puducherry was occasioned by way of transfer to his agent (respondent No. 4) and not by reason of sale and therefore he is not liable to pay tax, the petitioner has placed before this court along with his reply affidavit the form F certificate dated February 13, 2012 issued by respondent No. 4 in terms of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. As per section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the burden of proof in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale is on the dealer who claims that he is not liable to pay tax under the said Act and for the said purpose he has to furnish to the assessing authority within the prescribed time a declaration in form F duly filled in and signed by the principal officer of the place of business or his agent or principal as the case may be and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of the Central Sales Tax Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale. Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registratio....