M/S. Vignesh Agency, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10877 of 2015 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy) In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 09.03.2015 in G.C.No.50/2013-14 passed by the 2nd respondentDeputy Commercial Tax Officer-II, Tirupathi-I Circle, Tirupathi. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) in the State of Tamil Nadu. In the auction conducted by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (T.T.D), the petitioner has purchased human hair and when the same was in transit, the 2nd respondent has seized it on the ground that it was not supported by necessary documents. On an earlier occasion, when similar situation arose, the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.No.

26345 of 2013 and the same was disposed of along with W.P.Nos.21929 & 26374 of 2013, by order dated 09.06.2014. Thereafter review applications were filed and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 27.01.2014 in Review WPMP.Nos.8257 and 8258 of 2015 in WP.Nos.21929 and 26374 of 2013 and in Contempt Case No.1601 of 2014, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 09.03.2015, fixing tax liability on the petitioner at Rs.8,11,600/-, which is already paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as much as the petitioner is an auction purchaser, absolutely there is no basis for imposing tax on him.

India, as such, it is not covered by the provisions of the AP VAT Act, so as to impose tax. It is also submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, further proceedings are initiated to impose penalty also.

Against the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has got the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the AP VAT Act, to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. In view of the effective alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, we are of the view that there is no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage, as all the pleas put forth by the petitioner can be raised in the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

As much as the commodity, which the petitioner claims to have purchased, is sold in auction by the agency of TTD and in view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, permitting the petitioner to approach the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, by filing appeal. On filing proof of preferring such appeal, the respondents shall not proceed further pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 16.03.2015, till such appeal is disposed of by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. It is needless to observe that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________

JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY __________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO 17.04.2015 v v