THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRA GOVINDARAJULU TAX REVISION CASE No.45 of 2011 Dated:22.11.2011 Between: M/s.Mahalakshmi Oil Industries, Chitradurg, Karnataka State .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its STAT, Nampally, Hyderabad .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRA GOVINDARAJULU TAX REVISION CASE No.45 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The revision under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act) and Rule 40 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (the Rules) is by the sales tax dealer in the State of Karnataka. The background of the case leading to ﬁling of this revision is briefly noticed in the ensuing paragraphs. The Assistant Commercial Tax Oﬃcer (ACTO) (Intelligence), Chittoor, checked an oil tanker bearing No.KA- 01 AA930 on 04.02.2005. It was carrying a load of Sunﬂower Oil. After verifying the delivery note, cash/credit bill and goods vehicle record, it was observed that the vehicle was travelling from Chitradurga to Perundurai in Tamil Nadu without being stopped at any check post in Andhra Pradesh or Karnataka and that the documents revealed that they were intended for transporting oil seeds consigned by the petitioner to Arun Agency, Perundurai. As the route taken by the vehicle was circuitous and goods along with two slips disclosing the earlier transactions were seized from the cabin of the lorry, a notice under Section 29(6B) of the Act was issued proposing to seize and conﬁscate the sunﬂower oil worth Rs.7,75,368/-. Objections were ﬁled and after considering the same, an order of conﬁscation was passed. The same was conﬁrmed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred Tax Appeal being T.A.No.463 of 2009, which was dismissed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by impugned order dated 31.03.2010. In this revision, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of conﬁscation following the procedure under Section 29(6B) of the Act is illegal and arbitrary. He would also contend that when the goods were in transit and the oﬃcials presume that they were being carried for being sold in the State, it is a case for levying tax for release of the goods, and hence confiscation is illegal. The submission cannot be accepted. The Tribunal recorded the ﬁndings that the petitioner failed to prove that the goods belong to him. He did not produce any books of accounts to show that the goods were validly in transit. Section 29(6B) which was inserted by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act No.30 of 2001 empowers any oﬃcer to seize and conﬁscate any goods where such goods are carried in the goods vehicle without any documents or covered by ﬁctitious documents. The original authority as well as the appellate Deputy Commissioner found that the transactions eﬀected are ﬁctitious and that one Mantesh made use of the documents of the petitioner for indulging in clandestine transactions evading the tax. This is a ﬁnding of fact and therefore we do not ﬁnd any strong reason to entertain the Tax Revision Case. The Tax Revision Case is therefore dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________________________ (SAMUDRA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 22.11.2011 KH