KANYAKAPARAMESWARI TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these cases are wholesale dealers in rice. Each one of them purchased rice from the same registered dealer under bills obtained by them. The price payable to the registered dealer was paid by some of the petitioners in cash and others under demand drafts drawn in favour of the registered dealer. After purchasing different quantities of rice from the registered dealer, each of the petitioners sold the rice to others within the State and claimed exemption from payment of sales tax on the ground that sales of rice purchased by them from the registered dealers are second sales in the State. While their assessments were pending, the registered dealer filed a return including the various sales made to the petitioners and claimed exemption from sales tax on the sales on the ground that he did not actually sell rice to the petitioners, but merely sold paper bills. The assessing officer issued notices to the petitioners to show cause as to why, on the basis of the statement of the registered dealer, tax should not be levied on the sales made by them. He has also initiated penalty proceedings under section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for having claimed wrong exemption. The petitioners filed objections and requested that the registered dealer might be summoned and examined by the assessing officer in their presence. The assessing officer accordingly examined the registered dealer, K. V. Satyanarayana, who stated that he made a false statement earlier under duress and that he actually sold rice to the petitioners as per the bills given by him. The assessing authority rejected the evidence of the registered dealer, K. V. Satyanarayana, and assessed each of the petitioner to tax and also levied penalty at five times the tax.

(2.) Each of the petitioners thereupon preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner who dismissed all the appeals. They preferred further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal remitted the cases to the assessing authority

(3.) Sri P. Venkatarama Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners in T.R.C. Nos. 53 and 60 of 1980 and 1 of 1981, contends that the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal are unjust and unwarranted and that on its own finding the Appellate Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeals filed by the petitioners. Sri A. Pulla Reddy, the learned counsel for the department, contends that there is no legal evidence enabling any conclusion either in favour of or against the petitioners and that therefore the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal are sound and proper.