THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22442 of 2007 Date: 6th February, 2008 Between : M/s. A.S. Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., and another. …..Petitioners And The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Hyderabad and others. …..Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22442 of 2007 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction for quashing the order of the 1st respondent dated 27.9.2007 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Vat Act and further declare that the first petitioner is not liable to pay tax as a consignment agent of the 2nd petitioner. Alternatively, petitioners also seek a direction to the 2nd respondent to transfer the tax paid by the 2nd petitioner to an extent of Rs. 95,12,591/- to the credit of the 1st petitioner in respect of the sales conducted by it. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner who is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of various consumer goods like soaps, detergents, coffee, tea, creams and lotions of various popular brands is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd petitioner is having its depots in each State and its products are sold through retailers and distribution stockists. While so, the 2nd petitioner appointed the 1st petitioner as its commission agent in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of distribution of its products, who would be receiving stocks from the 2nd petitioner from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh on stock transfer basis and thereafter after duly accounting for the same, the first petitioner sells the same on behalf of the 2nd petitioner to its customers. Initially, the 1st petitioner used to discharge the liability of tax as an agent of the 2nd petitioner. However, from 1.4.2005, the 2nd petitioner has issued Form 522-A authorising the first petitioner to issue invoices on its name for the period from 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007 and on receipt of the sale details from the first petitioner, the 2nd petitioner used to include the said turnovers in its monthly returns and pay the respective tax along with the dues under VAT Act in respect of the business conducted by the first petitioner. While so, the first respondent issued an assessment proposal in form No. 305-A of VAT in respect of the returns filed by the first petitioner during April, 2005 to March, 2007 alleging that the first petitioner has been receiving goods on stock transfer using F Form and selling the same on its own invoices and collecting tax; that it is issuing F Forms to its Head Office at Chennai and also to Hindustan Lever Limited for such stock movement. It was further observed that since the first petitioner on receipt of goods from the 2nd petitioner by way of stock transfer has been selling the same on its own invoices and collecting tax, is liable to tax on the transactions done by it. The first petitioner submitted its objections to the first respondent on 4.7.2007 informing him about the settlement of VAT dues for the period from 2005-06 and 2006-07 along with the necessary details of the payments made and stated that since the 2nd petitioner as a resident principal has already discharged the tax liability, it is not liable to pay the same. It also enclosed along with the application Form VAT– 522-A issued by the 2nd petitioner for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 authorising it to transact business on behalf of the 2nd petitioner. However, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.9.2007 confirming the turnover tax liability at Rs. 95,12,591/- for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007 on the ground that the 1st petitioner was acting as a Commission agent of 2nd petitioner, who is a non- resident principal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that the 1st respondent without taking into consideration the fact that the 2nd respondent has issued Form 522-A in favour of the first petitioner authorising it to transact sales on its invoices has erroneously determined the liability of tax on the first petitioner by treating it as a non-resident principal. He further contended that since the first petitioner conducted the sales on behalf of the 2nd petitioner as an agent and since the entire sale transactions done by the first petitioner are being reflected in the returns of the 2nd petitioner and since the 2nd petitioner has paid the tax and discharged the liability, the first petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability of tax for the second time on the very same transactions. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes on the other hand submitted that though the petitioners state that they have paid the tax, they have not furnished the particulars of payments of the disputed tax liability. We have gone through the record. The dispute involved in the present writ petition is only with regard to payment of tax liability. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to furnish the necessary particulars with regard to payment of the disputed tax liability to the Respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from today. On such particulars being filed, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 6th February, 2008 ______________ G. ROHINI, ,J Note: Furnish c.c. in one week B/o pnb