2025 (11) TMI 1795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of iron and steel. The 2nd respondent passed penalty order dated 27.08.2020 invoking Section 55(2) of AP VAT Act for the period June, 2014 to June, 2016 on the ground that the petitioner had involved in bill trading by producing false tax invoices and way bills for accommodating its buyers to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the strength of the said false tax invoices and way bills. 2. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 27.08.2020, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent and after hearing the sale tax practitioner for the petitioner, the 3rd respondent by impugned order dated 27.04.2023 dismissed the appeal. Questioning the said order, the present wr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner that, the petitioner firm made payments through bank transfer to its sellers and accepting the transactions in question, the respective territorial officers finalized their assessments. It is further contended that in such circumstances, the respondents ought not to have passed the order under challenge inasmuch as without properly appreciating the facts put-forth by the petitioner and without cross verifying with the returns of its sellers. 8. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia contending that there was no movement of goods taken place in respect of sales made to M/s. Sidvin Agro Products Ltd., Paritala....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It is apparent on record that the petitioner is in the habit of issuing fake and false tax invoices willfully without there being any transactions and thereby allowing the purchasers to claim Input Tax Credit. The said action of the petitioner is liable to pay penalty of 200% of tax shown on the false invoice. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in invoking Section 55 (2) of AP VAT Act, 2005. 10. Further, upon verification of movement of goods, it was noticed that the lorry bearing Registration No.AP16V 7337 claimed to be transported the goods from petitioner to its purchasers and the same lorry had been used by another firm M/s. AMR India Ltd., at 05:11 pm on 09.01.2016 for transportation of goods from Polavaram, Tuni to ....