WP/7060/2000 of K.RAMA KOTI Vs CE AP TRANSCO CUDDAPAH AND 2 OTHERS on 30 December 2004

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is running a Small Scale Stone Polishing Unit files thiswrit petition interalia seeking to assail the impugned proceedings dated 18-02-2000of the first respondent confirming the impugned orders of the second respondentdated 23-06-1998 in regard to the assessment made on certain allegations foundagainst the petitioner during the inspection.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 23-12-1997, an inspection was made, whereinit was found that:

“All three fuse carriers of load cut outs found removed and keptaside. Three numbers external special wires found hooked to the outgoing terminals of the load cut outs and the other ends of these wireshooked to the L.T. fuse units terminals of distribution transformer locatedjust behind the factory shed wall”.

On the allegations, the provisional assessment was made and afterconsidering the explanation of the petitioner, final assessment was made atRs.7,40,432/-. On appeal, the same was reduced to Rs.3,33,596/-.Having regard tothe nature of business, the question of pilferage does not arise, nor there would beany such assessment as calculated by the respondents. Hence, on both thegrounds, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

3. Learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported theimpugned orders and further contended that having regard to the findings arrived atin the impugned orders, it is not open to the petitioner to raise all the questions onceagain.

4. Considering the submissions made and also on perusal of the impugned order,the question that arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the petitioner can be held liable for the allegations madeagainst him, as found during the inspection by the respondents.

23-12-1997 wherein the aforesaid allegation was made and on which theproceedings have been initiated. The case of the petitioner is of total denial and alsohaving regard to the nature of the business, such exemption could not have beendone, and therefore, ultimately assessment can therefore be said to be on the higherside. However, it is to be seen that both the parties did not find favourable reasonsas shown in regard to the main allegations of charge and ultimately held that it is thepetitioner, who is responsible for the same. Since the said finding is that of a fact,this Court would not venture to go into or re-appreciate the same under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. However, in regard to the quantum of assessment isconcerned, though the primary authority has made final assessment at Rs.7,40,332/-, the same was drastically reduced to Rs.3,33,596/-. By taking into consideration thefact that the inspection was made as long as on 23-12-1997 and also the facts andcircumstances of the case and the nature of business, it would suffice in the interestsof justice to revise the same to an appropriate assessment.

6. In the circumstances, the amount of Rs.3,33,596/- stands reduced to 10%. Aftersuch reduction, the amount comes to Rs.3,00,237/-.

7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No costs.

Dt.30-12-2004

Glv/Chvn

__________________

B. PRAKASH RAO, J

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on Thursday the Thirtiethday of December,2004.

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

Copy to:

1. The Chief Engineer (Electricity) A.P. Transco, Cuddapah.

2. The Superintending Engineer (Assessments), A.P. Transco, Cuddapah.

3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) A.P. Transco, Bangannaplle, Kurnool District.Bangannaplle, Kurnool District.

4. Two C.D copies.