DECCAN TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee - a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"), is the petitioner in this T.R.C. filed under section 22(1) of the Act.

(2.) In the assessment year 1981-82, the petitioner claimed exemption on sales turnover of Rs. 1,05,132 on the ground that it represents second sales of the groundnut cake of the value of Rs. 95,575 purchased from Sri Venkateswara Trading Company, Karimnagar. Along with A2 return the petitioner filed form E return claiming exemption. The Commercial Tax Officer found that the said Sri Venkateswara Trading Company was a non-existent company. While rejecting the exemption and making assessment, he had also proceeded against the petitioner for levying penalty under section 7-A(2) of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to explain as to why penalty should not be levied under section 7-A(2) of the Act but no reply was given by the petitioner. The assessing authority, by his order dated 23/11/1981, levied penalty of Rs. 8,673. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Appeals. From a perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 19/12/1981, dismissing the appeal, it appears that the only point urged by the petitioner was that the claim of exemption was not willful and that the assessing authority has not proved that the petitioner willfully claimed false exemption, which is an important ingredient for levying penalty. The Deputy Commissioner rejected that contention observing that the enquiries made by the assessing authority led to the conclusion that false claim was willful; he observed that when the groundnut cake had not come from Karimnagar dealers, as proved by the assessing authority, and the appellant had been basing its claim of exemption on purchase vouchers from Karimnagar dealer nothing more was needed to prove the willfulness. Challenging the correctness of that order, the petitioner filed second appeal, T.A. No. 82 of 1982, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. There the petitioner contended that it could not be penalised under section 7-A(2) on the strength of A2 returns only, filed by it, and in support of that contention it relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Eswara Oil Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1983] 53 STC 340. The Tribunal pointed out that along with A2 return the petitioner enclosed form E declaration and a statement purporting to be in reply to column "particulars of the dealer from whom the assessee purchased" showing a turnover of Rs. 95,575. The Tribunal, however, rejected the contention of the State representative that form E is not a declaration and held that it is a declaration as contemplated under section 7-A(2). It also noted the contention that the bills filed by the petitioner before the assessing authority, were returned after perusal and that the bills are not on record and observed that even if it was held that the appellant had not produced the bills of purchase in support of claim for exemption, it was clear that it gave a declaration in form E in support of the claim for exemption and that form E was a declaration as contemplated in section 7-A(2). The appellate Tribunal also rejected the contention that it was not established that the petitioner had knowingly produced false bills and the declaration. In this view of the matter the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 15/09/1987 which is now the subject-matter of this revision.

(3.) Mr. P. Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that on the ground that form E return is a declaration, the Tribunal upheld the order of penalty and that in view of the above judgment in Eswara Oil Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1983] 53 STC 340 (AP), form E cannot be treated as declaration.