THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO TREVC Nos.92,112,113,114 OF 2010 & WP Nos.6367,6369, 6371 and 6436 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari) Trevc Nos.92,112,113 and 114 of 2010 are filed aggrieved by the orders of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A.Nos.112,114,111,113 of 2009, dated 8.3.2010 wherein the appeals filed by the petitioner herein were partly allowed in respect of ‘C’ & ‘F’ forms and in respect of other reliefs, the appellate Tribunal negatived the claims put forth by the petitioner. WP Nos.6367, 6369, 6371 and 6436 of 2010 are preferred seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the claim of the Commercial Tax Officer and Deputy Commissioner in respect of disputed taxes pending disposal of the above referred Trevcs as illegal and unlawful. Since the issue involved in all the above cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel on either side. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commercial Tax Officer without affording sufficient time to the petitioner to produce the relevant records which could support its claim proceeded with the issue and passed assessment orders and thereby, the petitioner lost its opportunity to substantiate its stand and to prove that the addition of additional turnovers to the gross turnovers of the petitioner herein made by the Commercial Tax Officer is un-tenable. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax on the other hand submits that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the records by the assessing authority, but the petitioner failed to make use of the opportunity provided by the assessing authority and as such the petitioner has no right to contend that it was not provided with sufficient time to produce the records. A perusal of the impugned orders go to show that the petitioner having received the show-cause notice did not choose to produce the books of accounts and also not filed objections till date in spite of reasonable and sufficient time has been allowed which reveals that the petitioner has no objection to offer in the matter. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal while allowing the claim of the petitioner in part observed that the Commercial Tax Officer should have verified the genuineness of the relevant ‘G’ forms for according necessary relief in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.204, Revenue, dated 28-03-1998 even though books of accounts were not produced. Thus, even the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was also of the opinion that the petitioner could not produce the records. The reason for not producing the records, as pleaded by the petitioner, is due to not providing sufficient time to the petitioner to produce the records. Since the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal is also indicating that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to produce the records in spite of granting time and in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the time afforded to the petitioner is insufficient to produce the records, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if these matters are remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar Circle, Hyderabad. For the foregoing discussion, the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside insofar as the relief denied to the petitioner company and the matter is remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar Circle, Hyderabad with a direction to assess the actual dues of the petitioner by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the relevant records. The Commercial Tax Officer is further directed to complete the said exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the matters are disposed of. ________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ___________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO rkk/kvrk Dated:27-04-2010