TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessee, namely, M/s. Veekay Oil Products, represented by its Proprietor Sri. V. Pitchaiah, against the State of Andhra Pradesh, impugning the Order, dated 10.03.2003, in T.A. No. 682 of 1998 on the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dismissing the Appeal while confirming the Order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner [CT], Guntur, who in turn confirmed the Order of Assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla, for the Assessment years 1991-92. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: i) The Petitioner herein was a dealer in Sunflower Seed, Oil and Sunflower Oil Cake; doing business in the name and style of M/s. Veekay Oil Products, Piduguralla, and an Assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivery challans etc., enabling him to give a detailed reply. v) Taking into consideration the request of the dealer [Petitioner], a Notice was issued on 18.06.1994 requesting him to appear at Commercial Tax Officer's Office on or before 30.06.1994 and obtain the information required. It is said that, without obtaining any information, as required by him, from the Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, the dealer [Petitioner] approached the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition, which was disposed of with a direction that, 'the Petitioner be given the facility of inspection of the relevant documents in the office of the respondent on 08.07.1994 and thereafter permitted him to make an application giving particulars of the documents which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Tax Revision Case, came to be filed. 4. Though, various grounds are raised, Sri. S. Suri Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, fairly submits that, the case on hand is covered by the Judgment of this Court in T.R.C. Nos.264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, which was filed against the Common Order in T.A. Nos. 684, 683 of 1998 & 682 of 1998 [present T.R.C.]. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, submits that, since the case on hand is covered by the Judgment of this Court in T.R.C. Nos.264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, the present T.R.C. has to be rejected. 6. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to Para 7 of the grounds of revision i.e., "Question of Law" formulated, is as under: (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enkata Ramana Stone Crushers Co., V. State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, said contention has no legs to stand in the absence of any material to substantiate, and that too, when the same is not the basis by itself. Coming to the limitation aspect raised when there is a suppression of the turnover, it is the extended limitation that is applicable, that also meted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the appellate authority. Importantly the assessing authority when taken every possible means to prove the nature of transactions and there were suppression of the estimated turnovers by Nil return or by return showing absolutely low turnover and the same was detected on cross verification from the extracts of the check p....