TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S.Suri Babu, learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Search operations were conducted at three different places, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement Wing and other officers, on 07-12-2015, in the premises of - (i) some Sales Tax Practitioners and a Transport Company, (ii) a flat owned by an employee of the petitioner and (iii)a flat owned by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. What were recovered from the premises were certain books of accounts, cheque books, dealers' seals, stamps and log books of certain vehicles. There were also certai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ging the same as Inter-State sales against 'C' Forms. According to the show cause notice, the petitioner paid tax at 2% against 'C' Forms, thereby depriving the State of Andhra Pradesh, the difference of 3%. 6. The petitioner submitted his written objections on 10-5-2017 and attended the personal hearing through his representative on 14-7-2017. The petitioner claimed that he was merely a commission agent and a middleman bringing sellers and buyers together and that he did not handle any goods physically. The petitioner is not even a registered dealer and hence he claimed that there was no tax liability in his hands. 7. Overruling the objections, the 1st respondent passed the impugned best of judgment assessment order confirming the prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capable of identification very easily. The case on hand does not fall under this category. But there are other forms of assumption of jurisdiction which are incapable of easy identification. Actually the case on hand is little tricky. That it is so can be best understood only if we look into that portion of the impugned order which records the alleged modus operandi and motive of the dealer. According to the impugned order, the petitioner camouflaged local sales of edible oils as Inter-State sales. The modus operandi of the petitioner, as stated in the impugned order is that he took registration certificates in the names of nonexistent persons in the neighbouring States of Andhra Pradesh, but kept all records in Andhra Pradesh and operated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r States, on the basis of the purchase tax invoices found in the premises which were subjected to search. This totalled to a whopping purchase turnover of Rs. 160,51,58,413/-. To this purchase turnover, the 1st respondent added a gross profit of 10% and arrived at the total estimated sales turnover at Rs. 176,56,73,254/-. On this estimated sales turnover, the 1st respondent calculated VAT at 5% and arrived at the tax due as Rs. 8,82,83,713/-. 15. The first illegality committed by the 1st respondent was in not giving credit to the tax already paid. A person who allegedly purchased the goods may be benami. But the tax paid by him is real. That taxes were paid at the concessional rates against Form 'C' declarations is admitted even in the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., he had no jurisdiction to subject the turnovers of these two entities. 17. Coming to the second part of the total turnover, it relates to Inter-State sales made by persons who are dealers in the State of Telangana and who have reported the same to their Assessing Authorities in the State of Telangana. This amount totals to Rs. 38,69,10,220/-. A part of it viz., Rs. 23,71,35,160/- is a turnover of a company by name Manjunatha Impex India Private Limited, Hyderabad. Admittedly, this company is a registered dealer in the State of Telangana and they have suffered a final order of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on 05-01-2015 in respect of the very same turnover of Rs. 23,19,71,985/-. 18. Therefore, it is clear from the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 10-4-2018, we directed the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes to find out - (i) whether some of the turnover included in the impugned order has actually suffered a Central Sales Tax and (ii) whether the orders of assessment in respect of those persons are actually genuine. 21. Though the respondents have not come on record in the form of an Affidavit, providing answers to these two questions, it is borne out by records that a part of the turnover included in the impugned order has actually suffered a Central Sales Tax. In addition, the orders of assessment in respect of those persons are also found to be genuine. The only argument repeated in several places in the impugned order as well as in the counter affidav....