VIZOVOLIE CHAKASANG NAGALAND Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four revision cases under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act) are filed by the State against the common order dated 14.12.1998 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). M/s. Vizovolie Chakasang of Nagaland (hereafter, the consignor) is the respondent in TRC Nos. 151 and 248 of 1999. M/s. Bikaner Assam Road Lines, Vijayawada (hereafter, the transporter or BARL) is the respondent in TRC Nos. 184 and 249 of 1999. By the impugned common order, the Tribunal allowed the Tax Appeals filed by the respondents and set aside the common order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kakinada as well as the two confiscation orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Vijayawada and Commercial Tax Officer, Kasibugga. The writ petition is filed by consignor for direction to pay the value of the goods confiscated.

(2.) The special counsel would contend that after conducting seizure operations, the authorities at Vijayawada and Kasibugga issued notices to the consignor, transporter and consignees. This is not denied by any of them. The consignor also sent representations on three occasions denying sales in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The competent authority considered various contentions, made enquiries, recorded statements from the owners/drivers of the lorries and came to the conclusion that the consignor and the transporter were engaged in clandestine business of bringing cloves to the State and selling them without payment of sales tax. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the principles of natural justice are violated while passing confiscation order. He relied on State of A. P. v. Abdul Bakshi, 1964 15 STC 644 and Transport Corporation of India v. State of A. P., 1985 60 STC 14 (DB).

(3.) The counsel for consignor and transporter made the following submissions. The goods entered Andhra Pradesh under valid entry pass. They are accompanied by documents to show that the goods were being carried to the destination through Vijayawada. Therefore, Section 28(6) is not attracted nor the goods in transit can be confiscated by the Department. Sufficient proof was produced to show that the consignor is cloves mahaldar; she paid the cost of the cloves to the Department of Forests in Nagaland; the lorries carrying the goods passed through number of check posts; the transporter was carrying necessary documents to establish this and the Revenue failed to establish by cogent and satisfactory evidence that out of 45 lorries which entered the State, only four lorries crossed the border and 41 others remained in Andhra Pradesh. It is also urged that the CTO did not give opportunity before passing the confiscation order to the consigner and consignee. The counsel relied on Deputy Commissioner, Agriculture, Income and Sales Tax v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Company,1967 20 STC 520, Deputy Commissioner v. Midland Rubber Producer Co. , Ltd., 1970 25 STC 57, Bandamidi Rajaiah v. Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, 1978 42 STC 145 (AP), M/s. Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mills v. State of A. P.,1989 8 APSTJ 50, Shaik Basha v. State of A. P.,1992 14 APSTJ 121, State of A. P. , v. A. P. Paper Mills,1992 14 APSTJ 272, State of A. P. , v. Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Groundnut Traders,1999 29 APSTJ 235, Ramaswamy Kalingaryar v. Mathayan Padayachi, 1992 AIR(SC) 115 Hamida v. Mohd. Khalil, 2001 5 SCC 30 and Tallam Gangadharan v. U. Ismail Saheb, 2009 17 SCC 389.