IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13237 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Krishna Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Melapatla Road, Punganur, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Managing Director, G. Krishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Madanapalle Circle, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in levying tax on the Petitioner vide his Assessment Order dt. 24.03.2008 in Assessment No.5236/2004-2005, on the transaction of storage of goods of ryots and others in its Cold Storage Unit by collecting hire charges for the Assessment year 2004-2005 APGST as illegal and without jurisdiction and without giving opportunity to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13237 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the Respondent in levying tax on the Petitioner vide his Assessment Order dt.24.03.2008 in Assessment No.5236/2004-2005, on the transaction of storage of goods of ryots and others in its Cold Storage Unit by collecting hire charges, for the Assessment year 2004-2005 APGST as illegal and without jurisdiction and without giving opportunity to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. The main grievance of the petitioner is that it is a Cold Storage unit and it stores commodities such as Potato and Tamarind that are brought by ryots or any other person for the purpose of preserving them and for such storage, the petitioner collects hire charges from the ryots. Since the petitioner is neither the owner of the goods nor a seller nor a purchaser and, no transfer of property takes place, the petitioner is not liable to pay the sales tax on the value of the goods kept in storage unit. Though the petitioner has filed its objections to the show cause notice dated 8.10.2007 issued by the respondent, but surprisingly, the respondent passed the impugned order observing that an endorsement dated 4.1.2008 sent to the petitioner to produce the details of the owners, was returned by the postal department, without serving on the petitioner with an endorsement ‘door locked- continuously absent for more than eight days hence return to sender’, and hence, the petitioner can be treated as a purchaser. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a transaction of storage of goods by the owner in the cold storage unit of the petitioner by paying hire charges for utilizing the storage facility does not fall within the definition of sale and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax over those goods and apart from that, the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to produce records and to put forth its case and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel contended that an endorsement was sent to the petitioner to produce the records, but the petitioner failed to receive the same and to produce the records and therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce records is not tenable and the authorities passed the order impugned by arriving at a right conclusion. In the above circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the endorsement was not served on the petitioner due to the communication gap in the course of the service by the postal department, We feel it a fit case wherein an opportunity can be afforded to the petitioner to put forth its case. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to produce the records before the respondent within a period of four weeks from today under intimation to the respondent. On production of such records, the respondent shall reconsider the matter and pass orders afresh in accordance with law, on or before 30th August, 2008. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with the authorities. It is needless to observe that in default of production of records within the above stipulated period, the order impugned shall become operative. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 25th June, 2008 Note: Issue CC in one week (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:13237 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25/06/2008