SETHU LAXMI TRADERS Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax revision case is at the instance of the dealer, directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated June 29, 1992 in T. A. No. 476 of 1988 for the assessment year 1980-81.

(2.) THE assessee is a dealer in pulses and is registered on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Maharajgunj Circle, Hyderabad. The assessee filed its monthly returns in form No. A-2 for the year 1980-81 disclosing its total turnover as well as exempted turnover. Basing on those returns the Commercial Tax Officer framed the assessment granting exemption in respect of the second sales of dal. The Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional powers under section 20 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), issued show cause notice dated April 8, 1986. The said show cause notice was as a result of the action of the department in cancelling the registration certificate of M/s. Sanjay Traders, Agapura, with effect from April 1, 1980, pursuant to which disallowance of similar exemptions claimed by other dealers was confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. Nos. 275, 276, 377, 378 and 396 of 1983, dated September 9, 1985. Basing on the said order of the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner proposed to revise the order for disallowing the exemption already granted in respect of the alleged purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Sanjay Traders. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner took up the matter and according to him the petitioner/dealer failed to produce any evidence to support their claim, and passed orders revising the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and accordingly levied the tax in respect of the turnover, which was exempted originally in the assessment. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal the assessee also sought to file certain additional evidence to prove that M/s. Sanjay Traders, in fact, purchased dal, which in turn was sold to the petitioner and accordingly miscellaneous petition-TMP No. 368 of 1990 was filed for receiving certain additional evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following its earlier order, where it was confirmed the cancellation of the registration certificate of M/s. Sanjay Traders from whom the petitioner alleged to have been purchased the dal in respect of which exemption was granted, refused to receive the additional evidence on the ground that the said proposed evidence does not prove the case of the petitioner that it had made purchase of gram dal under various bills, which are sought to be produced before the Tribunal. According to the Tribunal, though opportunity was given before the revisional authority, the assessee did not produce any evidence, therefore, the evidence, which was sought to be produced, has no merit and accordingly the claim of the petitioner was rejected, even though it was sought for a remand to consider the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal as well as to give further opportunity to produce the necessary evidence to prove the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up in the present revision.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, on the other hand, supported the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is contended that the petitioner/dealer claimed that it had made purchases from M/s. Sanjay Traders, which was found to be a fictitious dealer. According to the enquiries conducted by the department, it was found that M/s. Sanjay Traders was issuing only sale bills without effecting sales for the purpose of evading tax. As the department stated that the said M/s. Sanjay Traders was a fictitious dealer, the registration granted in its favour was cancelled. The said cancellation was even confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no case in favour of the petitioner/dealer to accept its claim for remand. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner failed to produce any acceptable evidence to prove that it had in fact made purchases from M/s. Sanjay Traders. In the absence of any such evidence the rejection of the additional evidence and the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal is proper and just.