SRI VENUGOPAL OIL MILL Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a registered dealer on the rolls of the respondent and doing business in vegetable oil. The petitioner filed an audit report as provided under rule 17 (5a) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Rules 1957, which was inserted by G. O. Ms. No. 816, dated November 15, 2000. In the audit report the petitioner claimed exemption in respect of purchase of groundnut seeds effected from oil millers on a turnover of Rs. 19,27,150 on the ground that they have already suffered tax at an earlier stage.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner as provided under G. O. Ms. No. 354, dated May 29, 2001 the assessing authority is entitled to pass a formal order accepting the statement made by the assessee, but in case of deviation, the assessing authority is bound to issue a notice to the assessee on the basis of the objections or clarification, if any, and then only the assessing authority is entitled to make appropriate assessment order. Learned counsel stated that the assessing authority without following the procedure contemplated under G. O. Ms. No. 354, dated May 29, 2001 has passed the order impugned, with the result the petitioner is under obligation to pay an amount of Rs. 77,086 towards tax under A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 which according to the learned counsel is incorrect and therefore, seeks appropriate direction.

(3.) ON the contrary the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes for the respondent submitted that under the scheme of the Act when any order is passed, as provided under section 19 of the Act, the petitioner has a remedy by way of any appeal before the appropriate authority and having not exhausted that remedy the petitioner could not approach this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also urged by the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes that though the order impugned has been passed way back in the month of February, 2002, the present writ petition is filed belatedly in the month of September, 2003 and on that ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.