TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 213 (SC); in terms of proviso (i) to section 5 of the Act, both the buyer and the seller cannot be taxed on the same transaction; the respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to assess and levy tax on the petitioner in respect of the bamboo procured by them; having failed in their attempt to collect tax from the petitioner, the Commercial Tax Department was seeking to collect tax, in respect of the same transaction, from the Forest Department; this is contrary to proviso (i) to section 5 of the Act; in view of the order passed by the STAT on January 29, 2007, no taxes are payable in respect of the transactions between the Forest Department and the petitioner; the demand of the Forest Department, for payment of tax, is illegal; in any event the Sales Tax Department can only collect tax from the Forest Department; after the STAT had passed an order on January 29, 2007, the respondents have not made any assessment for any year, on the Forest Department of the Government of A. P., assessing them to tax in respect of supply of bamboo to the petitioner; the third respondent had issued a show-cause notice on July 11, 2007 to the fifth respondent for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., followed by demand notices; it is only if an assessment order is passed and, thereafter, a demand notice is raised can a garnishee notice be issued for recovery of the amounts therein; tax cannot be levied, on the transactions of supply of bamboo, either on the Forest Department or on the petitioner, as such supplies of bamboo by the Forest Department is pursuant to the lease agreement; the consideration, in a contract of this nature, is a "profit a pendre" on immovable property falling outside the purview of both the APGST Act and the A. P. VAT Act. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commercial Tax Department. In the counter-affidavit, filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, it is stated that a copy of section 17 notice was marked to the Divisional Forest Officer, Paloncha; the claim, for payment of sales tax, by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kothagudem was justified; the supplies made to the petitioner were in contrast to the supplies made before the enactment of the A. P. Forest Produce (Fixation of Selling Prices) Act, 1989 and the A. P. Forest Produce (Fixation of Selling Prices) Rules, 1991; in those cases, where sales tax was demanded, the bamboo coup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r handing over immovable property to obtain profit, as was done earlier; and these agreements are made to enforce the terms and conditions of supply by the Department, and due payment thereof by the petitioner. In the affidavit, filed in reply thereto, the petitioner stated that the impugned notice, under section 17 of the APGST Act, could only have been issued for recovery of arrears of tax, interest, and penalty as determined under the Act; in the present case no assessment orders were passed, against respondents 4 to 6, for any of the years under dispute; no tax liability was determined against respondents 4 to 6, in respect of the transactions quoted in the impugned notice; and their contention, that no assessment orders were passed, has not been denied by respondents 4 to 6. In reply to the demand notice dated April 28, 2007 issued by the fifth respondent calling upon them to make payment of tax of Rs. 1,37,79,653 along with interest at two per cent. per annum, the petitioner informed them, by their letter dated May 11, 2007, that the Commercial Tax Department had earlier reopened their sales tax assessments for the five assessment years from 1994-95 to 1998-99; they had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice under section 17(1), shall be deemed to have made the payment under the authority of the dealer; and the receipt of the assessing authority would constitute a good and sufficient discharge of the liability of such person to the extent of the amount referred to in the receipt. Under sub-section (4) any person discharging any liability to the dealer, after receipt of the notice referred to in section 17(1), shall be personally liable to the assessing authority to the extent of the liability of the dealer for the amount due under the Act. Under section 17(5a) where any person, to whom a notice under section 17(1) is sent, fails to pay to the assessing authority the sum demanded or any part thereof, as required in the said notice, such sum shall be recoverable from such person as if it were arrears of land revenue due from him. Section 17 merely requires a person, from whom money is due to the dealer, to make payment, of the amount referred to in the notice, to the Commercial Tax Department. On payment, the said person is entitled to claim discharge of their liability to the dealer for a like sum. However the notice, under section 17(1) of the Act, can be issued by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhra Pradesh. These revisional orders were set aside by the STAT in TA No. 75 of 2004 and batch dated January 29, 2007. The TREVCs, preferred by the State Government there against, have been dismissed by us and, as such, the petitioner cannot be subjected to tax under section 6A of the APGST Act for the bamboo cuts supplied to them, by the Forest Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, during the five assessment years from 1994-95 to 1998-99. While the submission of Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that, as the petitioner is not liable to tax under section 6A of the Act, the supply of bamboo cuts to them by the Forest Department does not constitute "sales" liable to tax under the Act, is not without merit, it would be wholly inappropriate for this court, in writ proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India, to examine whether or not the Forest Department is liable to pay sales tax under the APGST Act. While the apprehension expressed by Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be brushed aside, that would not justify this court taking upon itself the task of examining the validity of assessment orders, if a....