MADHAVA HI-TECH COLD STORAGE P LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER REGISTRATIONS BENZ CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari declaring the proceedings of the first respondent, dated February 8, 2002 in G. I. No. 7206/2000-2001 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and seeks appropriate orders, which are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and also under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, it constructed a cold storage in Vijayawada for which purpose it was required to purchase cooling systems, refrigeration and plant and machinery to install the storage plant for maintaining and preserving the required temperatures for storage of various commodities such as foods, chillies, tamarind, fruits, etc. While so, the first respondent, on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, had issued a registration certificate under the provisions of the Central Act on November 8, 2000 and in the said registration certificate, the first respondent in his own handwriting, made an endorsement to the effect that the petitioner, by virtue of the certificate, was entitled to purchase plant and machinery for installation in the cold storage for its own use.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that there is no violations of any principles of natural justice nor any provisions under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. He further submits that the first respondent, before proposing to impose penalty, has issued a show cause notice dated January 25, 2002 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit objections and accordingly, the petitioner filed objections, dated February 5, 2002, and the first respondent, having not satisfied with the objections filed by the petitioner, passed the order impugned, dated February 8, 2002 imposing penalty of Rs. 12,29,544 and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable. In the light of the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel, the issue, that arises for our consideration is, whether there is any violation of the provisions contemplated under section 10a of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 10a of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 reads as under :