THE ESTIMATION OF TURNOVERS ON THE BASIS OF CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY IS ONLY ONE OF THE PERMISSIBLE MODES AND THAT TOO WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE AND ONLY ON SHOWING THERE IS ANY DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY AND THE TURN OVER, WITHOUT WHICH THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A BASIS.

JUDGMENT

C. Praveen Kumar, J. - Heard Sri. S. Suri Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for Respondent.

2. The present Revision is filed under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, ['A.P.G.S.T. Act'] by the Assessee, namely, M/s. Veekay Oil Products, represented by its Proprietor Sri. V. Pitchaiah, against the State of Andhra Pradesh, impugning the Order, dated 10.03.2003, in T.A. No. 682 of 1998 on the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dismissing the Appeal while confirming the Order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner [CT], Guntur, who in turn confirmed the Order of Assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla, for the Assessment years 1991-92.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

i) The Petitioner herein was a dealer in Sunflower Seed, Oil and Sunflower Oil Cake; doing business in the name and style of M/s. Veekay Oil Products, Piduguralla, and an Assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla.

ii) The Deputy Commercial Officer, Piduguralla, assessed the dealer [Petitioner] for the Assessment Year 1991-92 through its proceedings, dated 19.10.1992, on a net turnover @ 1,96,980/-. It is said that, the sales to an extent of 301580 kilograms were not reported, through monthly returns. All these transactions were not considered for the assessment by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla. Further, the Assessee [Petitioner] had not filed the information regarding the usage of waybills, for which sales were obtained from the Department.

iii) Taking into consideration the information furnished, a Notice was issued to the dealer [Petitioner] on 28.05.1994, which was served on 31.05.1994. In the Notice, the dealer [Petitioner] was requested to produce books of accounts for the year 1991-92 along with details of purchases and sales of oil and cake.

iv) In response to the Notice, the dealer [Petitioner] addressed a letter, dated 14.06.1994, stating that the Notice was vague and the contents mentioned therein were not true and did not refer to Petitioner's business. It was also stated that, the contents mentioned in the Notice do not attract the provisions of A.P.G.S.T. Act. It was further stated that, the dealer [Petitioner] has already informed the Commercial Tax Officer that the records of the dealer [Petitioner] were destroyed in fire accident and requested the Commercial Tax Officer for supply of copies of waybills, invoices, delivery challans etc., enabling him to give a detailed reply.

v) Taking into consideration the request of the dealer [Petitioner], a Notice was issued on 18.06.1994 requesting him to appear at Commercial Tax Officer's Office on or before 30.06.1994 and obtain the information required. It is said that, without obtaining any information, as required by him, from the Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, the dealer [Petitioner] approached the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition, which was disposed of with a direction that, 'the Petitioner be given the facility of inspection of the relevant documents in the office of the respondent on 08.07.1994 and thereafter permitted him to make an application giving particulars of the documents which he requires.'

vi) In compliance of the Order, copies of the documents were supplied to the dealer on 15.07.1994. Thereafter, the dealer filed objections on 21.07.1994. Taking into consideration the objections filed by the dealer [Petitioner], and other facts of the case, the Commercial Tax Officer, issued a Notice on 18.01.1995, proposing best judgment assessment under Section 14(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, on an escaped turnover, for the assessment year 1991-92, which reads as under:

'The above net turnover was proposed to be taxed as follows:

vii) It is stated that, the notice issued, proposing best judgment, was served on 21.09.1995. The dealer [Petitioner] filed its objections through a letter, dated 06.03.1995, which were