THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.444 OF 2010 Date: 02.02.2010 Between: M/s. Indexport Limited. … Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar Circle, Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.444 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner, a registered dealer on the rolls of the respondent, is n the business of marketing of consumer goods such as cosmetics, ice tc. They filed their monthly returns under the CST Act, 1956 for the year 6 before the respondent disclosing their gross turnover as 01,776/- which included stock transfers of Rs.18,70,66,443/- to its in other States otherwise than by way of sale. While finalizing the nt, for the year 2005-2006 under the CST Act, the respondent issued se notice dated 28.11.2008 proposing to adopt the gross turnover as 79,349/- and to levy tax at 12.5% thereon on the ground that they were ed by ‘F’ Forms. In its reply dated 17.02.2009, the petitioner contended oss turnover adopted by the respondent was not reconcilable with their and that the correct gross turnover was Rs.32,35,01,276/- which stock transfers for Rs.18,70,66,463/-. The petitioner filed ‘F’ Forms for 85,920/- along with their reply and sought two weeks time to produce the F’ Forms for the turnover of Rs.39,29,184/-. In the order of assessment dated 20.02.2009, the respondent accepted orms filed by the petitioner for a turnover of Rs.18,36,37,277/-. With tock transfers, the assessment order records the contention of the that the correct gross turnover was Rs.18,70,66,464/- and not 79,349/- adopted by the assessing authority; the turnover of 66,464/- represented inter state stock transfers and that an extract of the eturns was submitted by the petitioner for the ready reference of the authority. This claim of the petitioner was rejected by the assessing ding that the petitioner had not filed any supporting evidence of the sale dger, stock transfer registers, copies of profit and loss account, balance and that the turnover proposed in the notice was being confirmed for nt of tax. Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the would contend that the petitioner had filed its monthly returns before the authority (copies of which are also filed along with this writ petition) uld show that the correct gross turnover representing inter-state stock was Rs.18,70,66,464/- and that nether the show cause notice nor the ssessment reflected the basis on which the assessing authority held that ner’s gross turnover was Rs.29,32,79,349/-. Learned Senior Counsel bmit that the impugned order suffers from perversity and necessitated its shed. Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, Learned Special Standing Counsel for al Taxes, would submit that in as much as the monthly returns of the for a period of three months was not available on record, the respondent ed a best judgment assessment; after the petitioner had filed copies of nthly returns along with the writ petition a detailed search was carried monthly returns were traced; and it was under such circumstances that of Rs.29,32,79,349/- was arrived at. It is evident from the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the monthly returns filed by the petitioner, though available with the respondent, was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order of assessment. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to quash the assessment order leaving it open to the respondent herein to pass an order afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances without costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Date: 02.02.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR/ASP