KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY, AIDED CO-OP UNION LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT). NO. I DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent in R.P. No/01/2011-12 dated March 29, 2012 for the year 2005-06 whereunder the first respondent, in exercise of power under, section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 revised the assessment made by the second respondent on June 18, 2008. The petitioner contends that the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is a co-operative society engaged in the business of sale of butter, ghee and cream, etc., among other products. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. During the assessment year 2005-06, the petitioner had effected inter-State sales of ghee. The second respondent after verifying all the books of accounts and returns filed by the petitioner as well as C forms issued by the buyers in other States completed the assessment of the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, passed an assessment order dated June 18, 2008 for the said assessment year determining the net turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 9,20,32,570. He levied a tax at the concessional rate of four percent and raised a demand of Rs. 36,81,303 based on the C forms issued by the buyers in other States.

(2.) While so, the first respondent acting under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, issued a show-cause notice dated April 18, 2011 proposing to revise the order dated June 18, 2008 passed by the second respondent in respect of the concessional rate of tax of four percent allowed by the second respondent covering a turnover of Rs. 2,19,57,288 in respect of inter-State sales of "ghee" effected to other registered dealers situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to the first respondent three C forms obtained by the petitioner from buyers in the State of Madhya Pradesh are not genuine. He therefore proposed to levy tax at higher rate of 12.5 percent disregarding the three C forms issued by such buyers.

(3.) The petitioner filed a reply dated December 26, 2011 to the said show-cause notice, inter alia, contending that the buyers in the State of Madhya Pradesh with whom it did business are registered dealers having TIN Number allotted by the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department in that State, that such authorities have furnished the statutory C forms duly filled in with the seal of the issuing authority in Hindi and therefore the first respondent is not justified in treating the said C forms issued by the buyers of the petitioner as not genuine. It also contended that it had obtained the C forms bonafidely and therefore the first respondent is not justified in disregarding them by levying tax at the higher rate of tax of 12.5 per cent. It submitted that it had enquired with the concerned officials and also the purchasing dealer who in fact had sent a letter dated June 3, 2010 issued and duly signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle V, Bhopal, who is his assessing authority with its official seal stating that the purchasing dealer M/s. Bharatiya Trading Company, Bhopal, is an existing registering dealer on his rolls and the C forms bearing No. A-1/4370535 dated November 12, 2004, No. A-1/2510381 dated December 28, 2005 and No. A-1/2510382 dated December 20, 2005 respectively were issued by the officials of the said Commercial Tax Officer V, Bhopal. The said letter was also enclosed to the reply dated December 26, 2011 given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated April 18, 2011 given by the first respondent. The petitioner contended that this letter proves that the three C forms filed by the petitioner relating to M/s. Bhartiya Trading Company, Bhopal doubted by the first respondent are genuine ones and not fake. It contended that if the first respondent still feel that the C forms are fake, they may be sent to a forensic lab to ascertain their genuineness.