AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey purchase edible oils from various registered VAT dealers from all over the State and sell the same within the State; they are entitled to 100% input tax credit, of the tax paid by them to their vendors on the purchases made by them, as per Section 13(1) of the Act; the only condition prescribed therein, for being entitled for input tax credit, is that the dealer should be in possession of the tax invoices issued by the selling VAT dealer; for the earlier tax period 2005-06 and 2006-07 (Part), the first respondent issued assessment and penalty proceedings; the Writ Petition filed thereagainst was admitted and conditional stay was granted; the said Writ Petition is pending; for the subsequent tax period from 2008-09 to January, 2012, the first respondent issued show-cause notice dated 06.03.2014, beyond the period of limitation of four years prescribed under Section 21 of the Act, for a part of the said period; they submitted their reply taking various objections including the ground of limitation; the first respondent passed an assessment order dated 29.04.2014 disallowing input tax credit and raised a demand of Rs. 46,78,605/-; the first respondent disallowed input tax credit in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. Sai Kendriya Trading company, Nellore the first respondent disbelieved the same on the ground that, on enquiry from the assessing authority of that dealer, it was informed that, though the said dealer was a registered dealer, he was carrying on business in prawn seeds, aqua culture and not edible oils; the said dealer did business upto June, 2011 and had left the place of business without intimation; on this basis, the first respondent concluded that the said dealer had not made any sales of edible oils to the petitioner, but had issued only sale bills; in the invoices and way bills issued by the dealer, edible oils were clearly mentioned; if there was any violation of the registration certificate by the said dealer, it is for the department to take action against him, but the transaction could not disbelieved; the first respondent further held that, though the purchases by the petitioner from said dealer were made through two different agents, the tax invoices and way bills were signed by a single person i.e., Sri K.L.N. Reddy as the proprietor; on this ground the first respondent had strangely concluded that the transactions were not genuine; another irrelevant gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollect taxes from them; the duty of the second seller is only to produce the tax invoices issued by a real and identifiable first seller; payment was made by the petitioner to their vendors by way of cheques and RTGS; this is sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions; way bills were issued to the dealers by the Commercial Tax Department manually during that period; the dealers had to submit details of utilisation of way bills to their respective assessing authorities; as the vendors of the petitioner had issued way bills, and had submitted utilization statements to their respective assessing authorities, their genuineness could not be doubted; in respect of a part of the period, the assessment order is barred by limitation of four years stipulated under Section 21(3) of the Act; the first respondent is not justified in holding that, as the petitioner had wilfully evaded tax, the period of limitation applicable was six years as per Section 21(5) of the Act; the petitioner had reported their turnover, and had submitted documents such as tax invoices, way bills, payment particulars and all its records; none of these transactions were unreported or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout any basis; in his objection to the show-cause notice, the petitioner has not raised any such contention; this contention is merely an afterthought; the petitioner has not produced any evidence of movement of goods showing receipt of RBD Palm Oil by M/s. Lakshmi Oil Traders, Jaggaiahpet; the petitioners contention, that Sri Y. Rajendra Prasad is the proprietor of (1) Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, Cumbum, Nellore District; (2) Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders, Nellore; (3) Sri Ganesh Trading Company, Tirupati and (4) M/s. New Sreenivasa Traders, Pileru and there was nothing wrong in his signing the sale invoices issued for all above said four firms, is not tenable; the petitioners contention, that Sri K. L.N.Reddy was authorised to sign on behalf of both Sai Kendriya Trading Company and Sri Hari Traders, is also not tenable; the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in support of this claim; the handwriting in all the invoices is one and the same; this shows that all the invoices were obtained by the petitioner from one source only; different registrations, tax invoices and entries in way bills are all false, and as such are invalid; this also confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act is specifically referred to in the show-cause notice can action be taken thereunder; and the show-cause notice should mention that jurisdiction under Section 21(5) of the Act is being exercised. Learned Counsel would place reliance on Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE ; and Gunisetty China Gunna Raju Traders, Visakhapatnam v. CTO, Visakhapatnam. On the other hand, Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that sub-section (5) of Section 21 is not an independent provision, and is merely an extension of Section 21(3); the requirements of Section 21(5) must be read into Section 21(3); if the dealer is not able to provide satisfactory proof that there was no wilful evasion of tax, then the period of limitation gets extended; if an allegation of willful evasion is made in the show-cause notice, the assessee files his reply thereto and an assessment order is passed holding that there was no wilful evasion, then the limitation gets reduced to four years, otherwise it would remain six years; if, on the other hand, a case of wilful evasion is made out, then assessment can be passed within six years; in the present case, the perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs, the words five years were substituted. The Supreme Court held: ..Moreover, this Court, through a catena of decisions, has held that the proviso to Section 28 of the Act finds application only when specific and explicit averments challenging the fides of the conduct of the assessee are made in the show cause notice, a requirement that the show cause notice in the present case fails to meet. In Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. Commissioner of Customs: (2006) 6 SCC 482), this Court made the following observations: 21. This Court while interpreting Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act in Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd. (supra) has observed that in order to attract the proviso to Section 11-A(1) it must be shown that the excise duty escaped by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement of suppression of fact with intent to evade the payment of duty. It has been observed: 2..Therefore, in order to attract the proviso to Section 11- A(1) it must be alleged in the show-cause notice that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact on the part of the assessee or by reason of cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or collusion or wilful mistake or suppression of facts. It is in this context that the Supreme Court, in Uniworth Textiles Limited 2013 (9) SCC 753, held that the show-cause notice must put the assessee to notice, of which of the various omissions or commissions stated in the proviso was committed, to extend the period of limitation from six months to five years; and, unless the assessee is put to notice, he would have no opportunity to meet the case of the Department. Unlike the aforesaid provisions of the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act, wherein the period of limitation gets extended in cases where non-levy of duty is by reason of (1) fraud; (2) collusion; (3) wilful mistake or (4) suppression of facts, Section 21(5) of the Act extends the period of limitation in cases where a dealer has committed wilful evasion of tax. Section 21 of the A.P. Vat Act, 2005 relates to assessment. Section 21(3) stipulates that where the authority is not satisfied with a return filed by the VAT dealer, or the return appears to be incorrect or incomplete, he shall assess, to the best of his judgment, within four years of the due date of the return or within four years of the date of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated in his report that the dealer had issued fraudulent sales tax invoices to accommodate input tax credit to the petitioner and to enable them to avoid payment of output tax at their end; the vehicle numbers, through which the goods were said to have been supplied by Sri Lakshmi Oil Dealers to the petitioner, were verified on the Road Transport Department portal and were found with the description data not found, Light Motor vehicles, Two wheeler, tractors etc; as these goods were sold in bulk, they could not have been transported in the said vehicles; it was evident that transfer of property had not taken place; bill trading may have taken place to support input tax credit and to avoid payment of output tax; and on visiting the business premises, mentioned in the registration record, it was found that, except a painting board in the said premises, no business activity was being conducted thereat by the proprietor Sri Jammula Gowri Shankar. The show cause notice also records that, on verification of the petitioners ledger, it came to light that no monetary payment was made, but sale bills (RBD Palm Oil) were raised on 28.03.2009 and 31.03.2010 i.e., one year after the purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oddutur nor were there any instructions on the said tax invoice for payment to be made in favour of Proddutur Branch only; it was evident that the petitioner did not purchase goods from the registered VAT dealer, but from a third party; the tax invoices were also issued by a third party which had no validity and sanctity; while the way bills enclosed to the invoices showed that goods were consigned from Nellore to Vijayawada, the General Information Service (GIS) data showed that, in a large number of cases, the vehicle had passed through the State by obtaining transit passes; the vehicles had entered the State through one check post and had exited from another; curiously, during the very same period, the sales invoices raised in the name of M/s. Sai Kendriya Trading Company showed that edible oil been sold by using the same tanker, and was delivered to the petitioner; this data showed that the goods were not actually consigned from Nellore to Vijayawada, but was coming from out of the State; the petitioner was the first seller in the State; and they had claimed input tax credit, producing false tax invoices, in connivance and collusion with agents at Proddutur. With regards Sri K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nown persons; to cover up the same, they had produced tax invoices issued by a third party; the said tax invoices had no validity and sanctity; and the input tax claimed against the invoices was liable to be rejected. With regards M/s. New Sreenivasa Traders, Piler, Chittoor District, the show cause notice records the report of the CTO, Madanapalle that they had not reported the turnover regarding sales made by them to the petitioner; they had obtained registration as a VAT dealer on 01.10.2008 for carrying on business in confectionary, atta, maida, dry chillies, tamarind, copra and spices; on verification of the invoices it was noticed that the petitioner had not purchased goods directly from M/s. New Srinivasa Traders, Piler but through agents i.e., M/s. Sree Sai Trading Co., Proddutur and M/s. Sadguru Trading Co. Produtur; the tax invoices and way bills were signed and issued by Sri Y. Rajendra Prasad who had issued invoices for other dealers also; the petitioner had made all payments in favour of New Sreenivasa Traders, Proddutur instead of New Sreenivasa Traders, Piler Chittoor District; the tax invoices did not refer to the existence of a branch at Proddutur nor were there a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the registered VAT dealer; the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that they had made payment directly to the registered VAT dealer; and the tax invoices issued by third parties had no validity. With regards Sri Hari Traders, Tirupati, the show cause notice records that all the invoices, and the way bills attached thereto, were signed and issued by Sri K.L.N. Reddy identifying himself as the proprietor of M/s. Hari Traders, Tirupati; M/s. Sadguru Trading Co. Proddutur/Sree Sai Trading Co., Proddutur had acted as agents in these transactions; the same K.L.N. Reddy had signed and issued tax invoices of M/s. Sai Kendriya Trading Company, Nellore also; these invoices were not accounted for in the monthly returns by the selling dealer; the tax invoices issued by third parties had no validity and sanctity; the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that he had made payment directly to the registered VAT dealer; and hence the input tax credit claimed was proposed to be rejected. The show cause notice also records the exercise of verification undertaken by the 1st respondent of certain sale transactions of the petitioner with the vehicle numbers in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the same date to Tamil Nadu State and other States, as also to local dealers; such transactions are possible only on paper; it was evident that the petitioner was taking delivery of edible oil, coming from out of the State, without disclosing out of State purchase of edible oil; they had obtained bogus tax invoices through agents at Proddutur, and were claiming input tax credit with the malafide intention of benefiting therefrom; the petitioner was restricting payment of output tax, in the shadow of local purchases, claiming input tax credit though they were the first seller in the State; right from the initial stage of these transactions, the petitioners contention was to evade payment of the legitimate tax due to the State exchequer, by adopting dubious methods; failure to report the out of the State purchases in their regular books showed that the petitioner had not maintained true and correct accounts as required under Section 42(1) read with Rule 29 of the A.P. VAT Act and Rules; the returns, submitted under Section 20(1) as self assessment, were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act; as per Section 13(3)(a) of the Act, a dealer is entitled to claim input tax cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the goods were not actually consigned from the selling dealer to the petitioner; the goods came from outside the State; and, though the petitioner was the first seller in the State, they had claimed input tax credit producing false tax invoices in connivance and collusion with agents at Proddutur. Similar allegations are made with respect to the edible oil which the petitioner claimed to have purchased from Sri Kaveri Oil Trading Co. Naidupet, M/s. New Sreenivasa Traders, Piler, Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, Cumbum, Nellore District, Sri Ganesh Trading Company, Tirupati and Sri Hari Traders, Tirupati. The show-cause notice concludes by stating that the petitioner had taken delivery of edible oil coming from outside the State, without disclosing the out of State purchase of edible oil; they had obtained bogus tax invoices, through agents at Proddutur, and were claiming input tax credit with the malafide intention of benefiting therefrom; they were restricting payment of output tax, in the shadow of local purchases, claiming input tax credit though they were the first seller in the State; and, right from the initial stage of these transactions, the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l evasion of tax. The findings recorded by the first respondent in the assessment order, which shall be referred to later in this order, also establish that the petitioner had committed wilful evasion of tax. As the ingredients of Section 21(5) are attracted, we see no reason to hold that the assessment, made for the tax period 2008- 09 and 2009-10, is beyond the period of limitation. II. IS FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, TO SUMMON THE SELLING DEALERS, FOR THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEE, IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE? Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was not give an opportunity to cross-examine the selling dealers despite a specific request that they be so permitted; and failure of the 1st respondent to summon the selling dealers, for cross-examination by the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel would rely on State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yousuff ; Machilipatnam Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd. v. The State of A.P, and T.M. Rajaganapathi Traders v. CTO, Salem. With regards the petitioners claim that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Madras High Court, in T.M.Rajaganapathi Traders (2005) STC 130 (Mad), held that the respondent was not inclined to exercise all the powers vested in him under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act; he was rest content merely with issuing the summons and stating that, since the concerned dealer failed to appear, he had no other alternative except to pass orders based on the available materials on hand; the respondent failed to realise that, in the event of such helplessness being recorded by him, he could, at best, not have relied upon any of the material which were relatable to the said dealer for the purpose of determining the tax liability on the petitioner; in the absence of the concerned dealer being examined, it would not be proper for the respondent to rely on those materials to fasten liability on the petitioner; and, in such circumstances, there was no other go except to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to hold the proceedings afresh, exercising all the powers that were vested in him under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in order to ensure the presence of the dealer concerned for being offered for cross examination by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsection (3) being satisfied, the Sales Tax officer can, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary and after taking into account all relevant materials gathered by him, proceed to make the best judgment assessment and in such a case, he would be bound under the proviso to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. But in the other case, where a return has been submitted by the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer would first have to satisfy himself that the return is incorrect or incomplete before he can proceed to make the best judgment assessment. The decision making process in such a case would really be in two stages, though the inquiry may be continuous and uninterrupted: the first stage would be the reaching of satisfaction by the Sales Tax Officer that the return is incorrect or incomplete and the second stage would be. the making of the best judgment assessment. The first part of the proviso which requires that before taking action under sub-section (3) of section 17, the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard would obviously apply not only at the second stage but also at the first stage of the inquiry,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Tax Officer. Here, in the present case, the return filed by the assessee appeared to the Sales Tax Officer to be incorrect or incomplete because certain sales appearing in the books of Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers were not shown in the book's of account of the assessee. The Sales Tax Officer relied on the evidence furnished by the entries in the books of account of Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the return filed by the assessee was incorrect or incomplete. Placed in these circumstances, the assessee could prove the correctness and completeness of his return only by showing that the entries in the books of account of Hazi Usmankutty and other whole- sale dealers were false, bogus or manipulated and that the return submitted by the assessee should not be disbelieved on the basis of such entries, and this obviously, the assessee could not do, unless he was given an opportunity of cross-examining Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers with reference to their accounts. Since the evidentiary material procured from or produced by Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers was sought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of assessment of VAT whereunder the assessee is given an opportunity to file written objections, along with documentary evidence if any, within seven days of the notice, if they have any objection to the proposed assessment. Form VAT 305 is the assessment of VAT and this order is required to be passed after taking into consideration the objections filed by the assessee to the notice issued in Form VAT 305-A. Rule 25(5) of the Rules merely requires the prescribed authority to afford a reasonable opportunity to the dealer in Form Vat 305-A. Rule 25(5) of the Rules requires the prescribed authority to afford a reasonable opportunity to the dealer. The reasonable opportunity to be provided in terms of Rule 25(5) is akin to the first part of the proviso to Section 17(3) of the Kerala Sales Tax Act. A requirement, similar to the second part of the proviso to Section 17(3) of the Kerala Sales Tax Act whereunder the assessee is required to be given a reasonable opportunity to prove the correctness or completeness of the return, is absent in Rule 25(5) of the Rules. The contention that an opportunity of cross-examination is one of the facets of a reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s-examination of the assessee and based on such evidence arrive at a proper conclusion. Instead as a revisionary authority he straightaway came to the conclusion that there was default on the part of the assessee in proving the matter under consideration. We are unable to appreciate the action taken by the Commissioner in this case. (emphasis supplied) A Tax officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings. He is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law. That does not, however, absolve him from the obligation to comply with principles of natural justice. (K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (1977) 39 STC 478 (SC); Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal ). Rules of natural justice are not statutory rules. They are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but flexible. These rules can be adapted and modified by statutes and statutory rules. (Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel ). The rules of natural justice are not a constant: they are not absolute and rigid rules having universal application. There are no rules whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inquiry should be permitted to be cross-examined by the party affected while in some other case it may not. The procedure required to be adopted for giving an opportunity to a person to be heard must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. (K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (1977) 39 STC 478 (SC)). The statements of persons recorded, and the information gathered, behind the back of an assessee cannot be used against him unless copies thereof are made available to him and, if such a request is made and the circumstances of the case so require, such persons are summoned for cross-examination. The show cause notice, in the present case, refers to various reports received from different commercial tax officers. It is not even the petitioners case that they should have been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the commercial tax officers on whose reports reliance was placed by the assessing authority. On the other hand, in their reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner specifically requested the assessing authority to issue summons to the dealers, from whom they claimed to have purchase goods, for cross-examination to find out th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, on enquiry, the neighbours had informed that his whereabouts were not known. It is evident, therefore, that the aforesaid selling dealers were neither carrying on business nor were their whereabouts known. Failure of the first respondent to summon dealers, (who were not even carrying on business in the said premises and whose whereabouts were not known), for being subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice. As the said dealers were not even available for examination by the concerned commercial tax officers, the question of making them available for cross-examination by the petitioner does not arise. III. WOULD PRODUCTION OF A TAX INVOICE BY ITSELF, AND WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE, REQUIRE A DEALER TO BE EXTENDED THE BENEFIT OF INPUT TAX CREDIT? IS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY PROHIBITED FROM ENQUIRING WHETHER OR NOT THE SELLING DEALER HAD SOLD THE GOODS FOR WHICH INPUT TAX CREDIT WAS BEING CLAIMED? Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the eight dealers, from whom the petitioner had purchased edible oils, are real and existing regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin the State and (2) mere non- payment of tax by the first seller within the State does not shift the liability to pay tax on the second seller; in disposing of the matter, the Tribunal had rightly applied the said tests and, on the facts and circumstances of the case after verifying the records, granted relief in respect of the purchases made by the assessee from real and identifiable sellers within the State whose registration number was mentioned in the bills; in respect of some other dealers whose registration numbers were mentioned, the Deputy Commissioner had disallowed the exemption for want of sufficient record; on verification by the Tribunal they were found to be real and identifiable dealers and, therefore, the Tribunal had granted exemption; in respect of some others, even the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, although certain registration numbers of the dealers were mentioned in the bills, they were not real and identifiable dealers within the State and disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee; in so far as the assessee's claim was allowed by the Tribunal, the department had filed T.R.C, and in so far as the assessee's claim was disallowed the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit to the VAT dealer for the tax charged in respect of all purchases of taxable goods made by that dealer during the tax period; failure on the part of M/s. Karat 24 (selling dealer) to file returns or remit the tax component of the sales made to the petitioner could not per se be a ground to deny input-tax credit; the impugned order of assessment did not assert that the invoices produced by the petitioner were fraudulent or had not been issued by M/s. Karat 24 or that the purchaser did not in fact obtain the invoices from the registered dealer; and it was also not disputed, and in fact was conceded in the order of assessment, that the registration of M/s. Karat 24 was cancelled on February 28, 2010, i.e., after the transaction in question occurred, whereunder the petitioner purchased bullion from the registered dealer and had produced the vouchers. Section 13 of the Act relates to credit for input tax and under sub-section (1) thereof, subject to the conditions if any prescribed, an input tax credit shall be allowed to the VAT dealer for the tax charged in respect of all purchases of taxable goods, made by that dealer during the tax period, if such goods are used in the busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; The case of the Revenue is that the petitioner had received and used tax invoices knowing it to be false. The entitlement of a VAT dealer to claim input tax under Section 13(1) of the Act, in view of Section 13(3) thereof, is only if he is in possession of a tax invoice. A valid tax invoice, in view of Section 2(35) of the Act, (1) must contain the details prescribed by Rules; (2) should have been issued by a VAT dealer to another VAT dealer. In view of the requirement of Section 14 of the Act, it is only in cases where there is a sale of goods, liable to tax under the Act, by one VAT dealer to another is the former required to issue a tax invoice to the latter. Among the details, required to be furnished in the tax invoice in terms of Rule 27(1), are the description of the goods supplied and the quantity or volume of the goods sold. The mere fact that the dealer is in possession of the tax invoice does not preclude the assessing authority from ascertaining whether the selling dealer had, in fact, sold goods to the purchasing dealer; whether there was physical delivery of such goods; whether the tax invoice was issued by a registered VAT dealer; w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EW OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ADEQUACY OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY RECORDED HIS FINDINGS, CANNOT BE GONE INTO: Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that absence of the selling dealers at the business premises, at the time of visit by the officials of the Commercial Tax Department several years after the transactions, cannot a ground for shifting the tax burden on to the petitioner; the statement of the neighbours of some of the selling dealers, that no business activity was being carried on by them, did not entitle the first respondent to shift the tax burden on to the petitioner; the contention of the first respondent that the petitioner had made payment to the vendors at Proddatur, instead of at the places where they were situated, is not a ground for rejecting the transactions; it is only on the instructions of the vendors that the petitioner had made payment by RTGS to the vendors bank account at Proddatur; the fact that the vendors of the petitioner had purchased edible oils from outside the State, and had sold the same to the petitioner using the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record and such act, omission, error or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. (Veerappa Pillai v.Raman and Raman Ltd ; T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa ). "Mandamus" means a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior court or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. (Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao ). A writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limits of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and conditions of its exercise. The other is the observance of law in the course of its exercise. These two heads normally cover all the grounds on which a writ of certiorari can be sought. In granting a writ of certiorari the superior Court does not exercise the powers of an appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior Tribunal. (T.C. Basappa AIR 1954 SC 440). The court, issuing a writ of certiorari, acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point, and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a Writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226, to issue a writ of certiorari, can be legitimately exercised. To be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the authority, on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at, one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. (Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan ; Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash ). The purpose of a Writ of certiorari is only to determine, on an examination of the record, whether the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law which it was meant to administer. Mere formal or technical errors, even though of law, will not be sufficient to attract this extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Where the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is liable to be considered as the first seller liable to tax. With regards statement Nos.1 and 2 in the show cause notice, the petitioner had objected thereto contending that the sellers may have purchased edible oil, and sold them to the petitioner as per the tax invoice and way bills issued by them; the sellers had really and physically delivered edible oils to their firm, and the same were sold by the petitioner to dealers in the State; and the assessing authority had failed to establish where the petitioner had obtained edible oils, if the version of the CTO was accepted as true and correct. In dealing with the said objection, the first respondent held that the vehicles, mentioned in Statement No.1, had originated from outside the State and were destined to go outside the State, duly passing through the State of A.P; as per VATIS reports these vehicles had exited from the State of Andhra Pradesh duly surrendering the transit passes; it was therefore not possible for dealers in A.P. to sell the said goods to the petitioner, and for the petitioner in turn to resell the same to local dealers, that too within the transit period; this itself showed that clandestine transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all submit such documents and furnish such information which may be relevant or necessary to the officer in charge of the check post or barrier after his entry into the State. Rule 58(2) requires the officer-in-charge of the first check post, after examining the documents and after making such enquiries as he deems necessary, to make out a Transit Pass in Form 616 in triplicate, and issue the original and duplicate thereof duly signed by him to the driver or person-charge of the vehicle after obtaining his signature at the end of the declaration provided in the said form. Rule 58(3) requires the driver, or the person-in-charge of the goods vehicle, to carry the original and duplicate copies of the transit pass, and to tender the original copy to the officer-in-charge of the last check post or barrier before his exit from the State. Rule 58(8) requires the original copy of the transit pass, so received by the officer-in-charge of the last check post or barrier, to be sent by him, by Registered Post, to the officer-in-charge of the first check post or barrier within ten days from the date of receipt from the driver or the other person-in-charge of the goods vehicle. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; The second vehicle, which obtained the transit pass at the entry check post at Madanoor on 26.03.2009 and exited from the same Madanoor check post, is shown to have been used on the same day i.e 26.03.2009 for sale of edible oil by the petitioner, again to Damodara Oil Mill, Kurnool, vide Invoice No.1792 dated 26.03.2009 and Way Bill No.1578260. The third vehicle obtained transit pass at Madanoor entry check post on 28.02.2009 and exited from B.V.Palem check post. The very same vehicle is shown to have been used by the petitioner on the same day i.e., 28.02.2009 for sale of edible oil to A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation vide Invoice No.1656 dated 28.02.2009 and Way Bill No.9827715. The fourth vehicle obtained transit pass on 28.02.2009 at Madanoor check post and exited from B.V.Palem check post. This vehicle was shown to have been used by the petitioner on the same day i.e., 28.02.2009 for sale of edible oils to Damodara Oil Mill, Kurnool vide Invoice No.1657 dated 28.02.2009 and Way Bill No.9827711. Based on Statements I & II, the assessing authority concluded that the petitioner had purchased edible oils from outside the State....