HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.33228 OF 2011 Dt: 16-12-2011. Between: AALSKANI VEERAIAH .. PETITIONER AND DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER INTEGRATED CHECK POST, BHIMUNIVARIPALEM, TADA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.33228 OF 2011 ORDER: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur) The petitioner was transporting 245 bags of paddy worth Rs.1,60,000/- from Chillkur village, Nalgonda District to Redhills, Chennai in a truck. The petitioner was sitting in the truck at the time of the transportation. 2. The truck was stopped by the authorities at the check post and the driver was asked to produce the documents the transport of paddy. It was then found that the documents produced were of doubtful and suspicious nature as the names noted in the documents did not tally with the names revealed by the driver of the vehicle. 3. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 29-11-2011 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to file a reply within ten days as to why the goods should not be seized u/s 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rule 53(1) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. 4. The petitioner did not bother to file any reply to the show cause notice and accordingly an order dated 1.12.2011 was passed confiscating the goods. The Commercial Tax Officer found that the documents produced for transport of paddy are fictitious as the names did not tally with the names revealed by the driver. It was also found that the transport of goods was accompanied by a government receipt which also was fictitious and false. In fact, reliance was placed by the truck driver and by the petitioner on fictitious and forged documents. On this basis, the order of seizure was confirmed. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner is owner of some land and that he has the capacity to procure the paddy which was seized. It is also submitted that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 4.12.2010 restrictions on the movement of preferred varieties of rice/paddy have been removed with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to tell us which are the restrictions that have been removed and whether rice/paddy being transported by the petitioner falls within the exempted category. 7. In any event since there is no reply filed to the show cause notice and the allegations made therein were effectively admitted by the petitioner, we cannot go into the various aspects raised by the petitioner, particularly when the allegations are of a serious nature and when reliance was placed by the petitioner and the driver on fictitious and forged documents. 8. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Interim application is also dismissed. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) Dt: 16-12-2011. ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) Nagesh Babu