IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10286 OF 2008 Between: M/s.Kamal Footwear,B-I,Industrial Estat, Autonagar Vijayawada-AP, rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Chandra Prakash Sachadeva, S/o.Totaram Sachadeva, aged about 49 years ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int) No.II Division, Vijayawada. .....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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 13.03.2008 for the assessment year 2004-05 under CST Act treating the turnover relating to branch transfers as inter state sales and levying tax at 10% is arbitrary, illegal, and without any basis and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10286 OF 2008 ORDER (Per Honourable Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition is directed against an order of assessment by the respondent dated 13.03.2008 whereby the petitioner’s claim for exemption on a turnover of Rs.2,31,28,516/- in respect of stock transferred, claimed to be inter branch transfer of stock was disallowed treating the same as inter state sales not covered by Form ‘C’. The assessee-petitioner herein claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs.2,31,28,516/- claiming that this component of the stock moved to Chennai was to its Branch and constituted inter branch transfer falling within the provisions of Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). The respondent by the impugned order of assessment disallowed this claim for exemption holding that the assessee could not claim exemption by mere filing of Forms and should supplement such of the claim of inter branch transfer by other evidence such as those pertaining to the existence of the branch, movement of goods, L.Rs. and R.Rs. The respondent-authority also held that the assessee failed to submit such evidence in support of the claim for exemption. He additionally recorded that the investigation made by him through the inter state mechanism supported and established the position that there was no branch (at Chennai) at all. On the basis of these reasons, the assessing authority concluded that the assessee had camouflaged inter state sales and tried to pass them on as inter branch transfer to claim the exemption. The respondent authority further records that the assessee contrived the inter branch transfer scenario with a view to claim exemption since the sales of chappals in Tamilnadu is not taxed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special standing counsel for Commercial Tax. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in STAR PAPER MILLS LTD. V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[1] to contend that though the petitioner had available an appellate remedy to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, recourse to extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was available in extraordinary circumstances where power is exercised in contravention of the principles of natural justice or the procedure mandated for a decision has not be adopted. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not established violation of any principles of natural justice. The petitioner has been afforded due and proper opportunity and has been issued a show cause notice before the respondent authority proceeded to assessment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent authority was not competent to make the assessment. No inherent lack of competence on the part of the respondent assessing authority is either pleaded or established. Merely because on the petitioner’s contention the respondent authority had come to a wrong conclusion or had erroneously appreciated the evidence on record to come to a conclusion in the assessment, the error would not invite or legitimize judicial review bypassing the alternative, efficacious statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. This Court finds no justification for enabling the petitioner to avoid the appellate remedy nor any justification for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also places reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in KAMADHENU FEEDS (P) LTD., NARAKODURU, CHEBROL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, GANDHICHOWK CIRCLE, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND OTHERS[2]. That was a case where this Court interfered with an order of assessment made under the provisions of the same Act since this Court found that the order impugned therein was in transgression of a facet of the rules of natural justice, namely the duty of a quasi-judicial authority to record reasons and communicate the same to the affected person. In the case on hand, the order of assessment is a reasoned order that the reasons recorded, which according to the petitioner are wrong, is another matter. It is trite that an authority which has jurisdiction to come to a decision may come to a wrong decision. Any errors of a decision within jurisdiction will have to be corrected in appeal unless the decision is vitiated by patent errors such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice or any challenge to the vires of the statute, when alone the plenary exercise of judicial review is warranted. The observations made in the course of this Judgment are merely for the purpose of recording the conclusion that this Court does not consider it appropriate to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the availability of an alternative remedy, the observations herein are not intended to be an expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for exemption. As and when the petitioner files an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, if any in filing such appeal, we are not in doubt that the appellate authority will consider the same in accordance with. law and on the merits of such application. On the analysis above, we find no extraordinary circumstances warranting judicial review of what is merely an order of assessment and against which the petitioner has an effective, alternative statutory remedy of an appeal by way of Section 19 of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy available to it, in accordance with law. ___________________ G.RAGHURAM, J. _________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 4th DECEMBER, 2008 VGSR / PGS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10286 OF 2008 4th DECEMBER, 2008 [1] 148 STC 144 [2] 45 APSTJ 62