THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24032 OF 2003 Dated:09.11.2011 Between: Dr.Sidda Hanumantha Rao .. Petitioner And The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Rayadurg .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24032 OF 2003 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 28.08.2003 of the respondent whereby and whereunder the request of the petitioner for payment of tax and to drop further action in the matter of seizure of lorry carrying Teakwood Cut Sizes was accepted by collecting an amount of Rs.38,248/-. In this writ petition, he seeks invalidation of the said proceedings and a consequential direction for refund of the amount paid. The fact of the matter in brief is that the petitioner obtained permission from Ongole Municipality for construction of a residential house. As permitted by his Architect, he allegedly purchased Teakwood from M/s.New Bharat Saw Mill, Davanagere. When the same was being transported, the respondent detained the vehicle on 27.08.2003 at D.Hirehal Village near Rayadurg on the ground that the documents produced by the driver were defective and further enquires are needed. The respondent proposed to launch prosecution. After receiving the detention order, the custodian of the goods, namely, the partner of M/s.New Bharat Saw Mill filed a letter stating that the goods were sold to the petitioner for his own consumption. Even before it could be considered, the petitioner offered to pay tax and paid the amount whereupon the goods were released. Thereafter, the instant writ petition is filed. It is mainly contended that without proper enquiry, the goods were detained. The petitioner is not a dealer and therefore his is not liable to pay the sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, the Act) and that the detention of the vehicle and release of the Teakwood Cut Sizes only on payment of amount is illegal. In support of his contention, the petitioner has enclosed the Pass issued by Karnataka Forest Department (Book No.12983, Pass No.649126), dated 26.08.2003). The respondent in the counter affidavit does not dispute about the detention and seizure of the goods. The payment of tax is also not denied. It is further stated that the driver of the lorry or the petitioner or the partner who filed the letter on 28.08.2003 did not produce before him the pass issued by the Karnataka Forest Department or anybody else to show that the goods were intended for the purpose of petitioner and therefore tax was accepted. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The counsel for the petitioner reiterates the submissions, which are already noticed hereinabove. Per contra, the Special Counsel would submit that no evidence was produced before the respondent and therefore when the prosecution was about to launch, on his own volition the petitioner has agreed to pay the tax. In the counter affidavit, a categorical averment is made that the petitioner has failed to produce the permit given by the Karnataka Forest Department. The statement is not controverted by filing a reply affidavit. It is settled that uncontroverted counter affidavit statements are deemed to have been proved. The petitioner’s counsel vehemently contends that all the material was placed before the respondent and no enquiry was conducted. We are not able to appreciate the contention. A perusal of the letter given by the partner of M/s.New Bharat Saw Mill or the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would show that not even an allegation is made therein that the necessary proof of buying the Teakwood Cut Sizes was produced though the pass issued by the Forest Department is placed before this Court. Further, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner himself offered to pay the tax and got the Teakwood Cut Sizes released. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 09.11.2011 KH