Apex Steel Re-rolling Mills vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Charminar Division, Hyderabad and Another

K. Bhaskaran, C.J. and Anjaneyulu, J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision notice dated October 13, 1987, proceeds on the assumption that it is for the assessee to prove that raw material had already suffered sales tax. His submission is that the assessing authority proceeded after being satisfied that the raw material had already suffered sales tax. Inasmuch as it is only a notice, we do not think that at this stage we would be justified in interfering with the proceedings initiated by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Charminar Division, Hyderabad. It might be open to the petitioner to show that the purchases were from registered dealers whose identity could be established and that it is for them to pay the sales tax and not for the petitioner who made the purchases from the respective dealers. We are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not necessary for the petitioner to further establish that the sellers of the raw material actually paid the sales tax; provided that there is acceptable evidence regarding the purchases effected and the identity of the sellers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner might be granted two weeks from today, to file objections to the notice impugned in the writ petition and the same is granted. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150.

Writ petition disposed of.