APHC010573892009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23722/2009 Between: Maruthi Traders, E.g.dist. ...PETITIONER AND The C T O Mandapeta 2 Othrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S CHAKRAPANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. SURIBABU S(SPL SC FOR CT AP) The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein was a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, with the Commercial Tax Officer, Mandapeta. The petitioner, who was involved in the business of paddy and rice, had cultivated, on lease, rice and paddy and had been carrying out purchasing, milling and sale of paddy and rice. An inspection was carried out, on 26.09.2006, in the premises of the petitioner, by the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil 2 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23722 of 2009 Supplies, the Inspector of Police (Vigilance and Enforcement), the Assistant Grain Purchase Officer, etc. In the course of this inspection, the Inspecting Authorities had found variation in the stocks which were physically available and the stocks which were shown to be present, in the stock register. On the basis of these variations, the Commercial Tax Officer, Mandapeta, had initiated action against the petitioner by issuing a show-cause notice, dated 10.07.2008. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice by way of objections, dated 26.07.2008. 2. Prior to this, the stocks which were in variance, from the records maintained by the petitioner, were seized under Form 603 on 27.09.2006 itself. Subsequently, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the value of the goods, after which the seized rice was released to the petitioner by Form VAT 604 on 27.09.2006 itslef. Thereafter, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kothapeta, issued Form 605, on 06.10.2006, confiscating the goods worth an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which had been paid on 27.09.2006. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.25465 of 2006. This Writ Petition was disposed of, by the erstwhile High Court, by an order, dated 05.01.2007, setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, leaving it open to the Authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings for confiscation. 3 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23722 of 2009 3. In view of these directions, the show-cause notice, dated 10.07.2008, came to be issued. 4. The objections raised by the petitioner were essentially of the nature of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that no responsible representative of the petitioner was available during the inspection of the premises and that the variation of stock, recorded by the authorities, on 27.09.2006, is incorrect. The petitioner also took the stand that the actual variation of the stock was only 22.8 quintals as against the variance found by the Inspecting Team and that the excess paddy and rice was only to 12.25 quintals. 5. The Commercial Tax Officer, Mandapeta, after considering these objections, had held that one Sri N. Govindaraja Swamy, who was an accountant-cum-clerk of the petitioner was available through out the inspection process and that the Managing Partner of the rice mill-petitioner, had also attended and filed a statement on 27.09.2006, in which it was stated that they had no explanation to file in regard to the excess quantity of stocks shown in the seizure notice in Form VAT 603, issued by the Inspecting Team. After noticing these two facts, the Commercial Tax Officer, Mandapeta, had also set out the calculations made by the Inspecting Team as found to be correct. After considering all these aspects, the Commercial Tax Officer passed an order of confiscation, on 17.07.2009, which is now assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23722 of 2009 6. Heard Sri S. Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. 7. The entire case of the petitioner is that the record of the Inspecting Team, evincing the variation of paddy and rice available in the books and the quantum of paddy and rice available physically in the rice mill, is incorrect and cannot be relied upon. For this purpose, the petitioner contends that the record was barred without facilitating anybody from the side of the petitioner. 8. This contention is clearly incorrect in view of the fact that the accountant of the petitioner was present through out the inspection and the Managing Partner of the petitioner did not dispute the discrepancy set out in the assessment report. It may also be noted that the Managing Partner of the petitioner had specifically replied that there was no explanation to offer in relation to the discrepancy of the stock set out in the assessment report. 9. Sri S. Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the signature of the Managing Partner was obtained by force. However, no material had been placed before this Court to demonstrate any such fact. In the normal course, it would be open to the petitioner to have immediately sent a communication to the Authorities resolving from the said statement made before the Authorites. No such steps appear to have been 5 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23722 of 2009 taken by the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept this contention. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 29.01.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23722 of 2009 161 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO:23722 of 2009 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 29th January, 2025 MJA