VIJAYALAKSHMI OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the assessment year 1974 -75, on the ground that the petitioner carried on business in the fictitious name of M/s. Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, the turnover of Rs. 3,55,845 -56 Rs. was assessed to tax. The petitioner is a proprietory concern. On enquiry, it was noticed that the firm by name M/s. Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, Yerraguntal is a fictitious one and Sarvasri K. Narasimhulu, A.L. Narasimhulu, K. Konda Reddy and S. Subbaraidu signed the bills relating to the said fictitious firm during the year 1974 -75. It was also noticed that Sri K. Narasimhulu was an employee of Sri Allam Subbarayudu, the proprietor of the petitioner -firm. On the basis of the said material, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before assessing the said turnover, but there was no response to the said show cause notice, so the Assessing Authority finalised the assessment. The appeal filed against the order of assessment, was dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner then carried the matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner that his business was closed on 1.1.1973, holding that there was no evidence on record to support the claim. It also noted that there was no contra evidence to the fact found that the employees of the petitioner signed the bills of the said fictitious firm M/s. Lakshmi Narasimha Traders. On those facts, the Tribunal held that the assessing authority was justified in assessing the appellant on the disputed turnover and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Girish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the Tribunal has erroneously based the burden of proof on the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. We are not persuaded to accept the said contention. Two facts remain uncontroverted namely, that the petitioner was carrying on business in the fictitious name of M/s. Lakshmi Narsimha Traders and that the employees who were signing the bills are the employees of the Manager of the firm. It is this finding that is projected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not wrongly based the burden of proof on the petitioner. The Tribunal only pointed out the facts which remain uncontroverted. We find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference.

(2.) THE Tax Revision Case is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.