THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15839 of 2000 Dated:08.07.2011 Between: M/s.Ganeshram Ramchandra Lahoti. … Petitio And Asst.Commercial Tax Officer, Palamner, Chittoor District, And another. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15839 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner at the relevant time was a registered dealer under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the APGST Act), as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act). It is engaged in the busines food grains, pulses, oil seeds etc., at Narayanpet in Mahabubnagar Dist During the month of July, 2000, statedly, it received purchase orders from e concerns in the State of Kerala by telephone. It purchased 200 bags of gr gram from M/s.Lakshmi Prasanna Enterprises, Khammam. According to th these goods suffered sales tax at the point of purchase when the tax w collected by the seller. Be that as it is, the stocks were being transported lorry No.TAC 1517 allegedly with valid waybills. At Palamaner when it w crossing the State, the first respondent detained the lorry along with the goo An amount of Rs.33,440/- (an amount of Rs.8360/- towards tax and Rs.25,0 towards penalty) vide receipt No.5613203 dated 22.07.2000 was collect Assailing the said action, he filed the instant writ petition seeking a wr mandamus invalidating the impugned action. The petitioner would contend that green gram being declared go under the CST Act cannot be subjected to sales tax twice; the goods alre suffered tax at Khammam in the hands of the selling dealer; and, without giv any notice and without proper assessment order, the collection of the tax penalty would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that, when vehicle transporting green gram was checked, the credit bills were secrete the cabin of the goods vehicle and, therefore, the statement of the driver w recorded before issuing the show cause notice dated 21.07.2000. The dr received the show cause notice and, after contacting the petitioner, paid tax penalty which was arranged by the petitioner’s friend at Palamaner. It is further case of the respondents that a notice was issued to the petitioner and accordance therewith, the petitioner paid the tax and penalty. Subseque the order is also passed. The counter affidavit was filed by the respondents on 23.08.2001 d serving a copy thereof on the Counsel for the other side. Inspite of the sam reply was not filed immediately. We heard the matter on 24.06.2011. Even that time, the petitioner did not file any reply affidavit. Ultimately it is only 29.06.2011 that a reply affidavit, denying the receipt of notice and receip assessment order passed by the first respondent, was filed. The o allegations in the writ affidavit are reiterated in the reply affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that green g purchased by the petitioner on behalf of the non-resident principals canno treated as sale as the goods were being transported to principals who are a registered dealers in the other State. Nextly, he would contend that green g attracts single point tax under the APGST Act and the same was paid Khammam and, therefore, it cannot be taxed by the first respondent wh would be unconstitutional under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Per contra, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes submits that in writ affidavit itself the petitioner has fairly admitted to receiving the notice iss by the first respondent, and there is no specific denial with regard to the cou averments in the reply affidavit filed belatedly. The two interrelated questions that would require consideration whether the petitioner has discharged burden of proof placed on them un Section 7-A of the APGST Act to show that the goods transported and detai at Palamaner suffered sales tax, and they were intended to be delivered to n resident principals at Nagercoil. The gravaman of the allegations made by the respondents in the cou affidavit is that, when the lorry transporting green gram was checked, the b were secreted in the cabin and, therefore, a notice was served. The factum receiving the notice is clearly admitted by the petitioner in paragraph No.7 of writ affidavit. Therefore, no amount of denial in the reply affidavit filed belate would belie the admission made by the petitioner itself. Though the petitio denies having received the notice and the assessment order passed by the respondent, as the denial has come very late, we do not hesitate to apply presumption that all Government actions are done in accordance with law. T is further strengthened by the admission of the petitioner that it received not Be it noted, it is only an allegation made that the notice was issued with proper records and is vague. The Counsel nextly contends that green gram attracts single point sa tax in the State of Andhra Pradesh and when it is being transferred to principal it cannot be taxed again. This is again a matter of proof. Section of the APGST Act casts the burden of proving that any sale or purchase effec by dealer is not liable to tax on the dealer. In the absence of any documen evidence that the green gram purchased at Khammam suffered tax or it w intended for non-resident principals at Nagercoil, the assessment order pas by the first respondent cannot be faulted. We do not find any strong reaso exercise our discretion in a case of this nature. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to cos _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 08.07.2011 vs