REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AND THREE OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a leading manufacturer of bulk drugs and formulations having international operations. It has two bulk drug manufacturing units and two formulation manufacturing units at Pydibhimavaram, Srikakulam District, which is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and another two formulation units at Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone. The petitioner is registered as a dealer in Andhra Pradesh with the Commercial Tax Officer, Gajuwaka Circle, Visakhapatnam, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short the Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, with effect from 02.6.2014. It is also a registered dealer in the State of Telangana under the Act, as adapted by the State of Telangana.

(2.) The petitioner averred that on 18.8.2015, its unit at Bachupally, Ranga Reddy District has stock-transferred Capsule manufacturing equipment Omega 20 extruder worth Rs.1.81 crores to its own formulation unit at Sector Nos.9 to 14 of Pydibhimavaram SEZ, Srikakulam District; that while transporting the goods, its unit at Bachupally arranged Proforma Invoice, e-waybill of the State of Telangana and a copy of the Original invoice issued by the manufacturer of the equipment; that during the said transit, respondent No.1 detained the goods at about 8.10 am on 20.8.2015 alleging that the said consignment was not accompanied with advance CST waybill of Andhra Pradesh; that on realising the purported mistake of not issuing the advance CST waybill, the same was immediately generated On-line at about 12.55 pm on 20.8.2015; and that the delayed generation of e-waybill, after the goods were detained, was, if at all, a technical lapse.

(3.) The petitioner further averred that it has made a representation to respondent No.3 on 21.8.2015 claiming that the goods under transit are to its own Unit located in Pydibhimavaram SEZ; that there is no transfer of title of goods to attract tax; that failure to generate CST advance waybill of Andhra Pradesh was by oversight and not willful; that respondent No.1 was not correct in insisting on payment of tax and two times the tax as penalty as, the same is not envisaged under the Act; that it has offered to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the compounding fee under Section-61 of the Act for the technical lapse of not generating the e-waybill of the State of Andhra Pradesh; and that, as its request for release of the detained goods did not yield any result, it has filed the present Writ Petition.