ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. Sri Bhaskar Reddy, the learned counsel representing Sri Srinivas Reddy would contend that there is no notification at all under Section 30(9) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘Act’ for the purpose of convenience). The learned counsel also would submit that even otherwise if the allegations made in the charge-sheet are to be taken into consideration, no offence had been made out and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor had placed before this Court the notification in G.O.Ms.No. 565, Revenue (S) dated 29th April, 1975 under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957-Amendments (in short the ‘Rules’). It is no doubt true that there is some controversy between the parties relating to the notification which is produced before this Court and whether the same would satisfy the requirements specified under Section 30(9) of the aforesaid Act. 4. M/s. Kesoram Cement, Basantnagar filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Code’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.245 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapalli. On 4-7-2002 while admitting the same, this Court granted interim stay. The learned Public Prosecutor requested time to verify in relation to the notification and thus the matter is coming up today after two weeks. 5. The petitioner is charged with the offence under Section 30(9) of the Act for possessing statutory G-Forms which were not filled up by buyers. Several of the contentions had been raised and elaborate submissions also had been made in relation to Sections (5B) and 7(A) of the Act, Rule 30-A and 30-B of the Rules and G.O.Ms.No.496 dated 17-7-2001. It may be appropriate to have a look at para 10 of the grounds and the said grounds raised at para 10 read as hereunder: "It is submitted that the ultimate allegation of the Respondent is that the petitioner is in possession of Forms which are not obtained in accordance with provisions of the Act or Rules and hence, an offence is committed under Section 30(9) of the Act. The petitioner submits that the respondent has not cited the specific provision or Act which prohibits the petitioner from collecting statutory G form from the buyers contractually in advance. The petitioner submits that the respondent has not cited the specific provision or Act which prohibits the petitioner from collecting statutory G form from the buyers contractually in advance. As long as the petitioner has to get them filled up and signed by the buyers before filing in assessment proceedings, there is no irregularity in collecting advance G form from the buyers. The petitioner had to protect itself against any non-cooperation by the buyers at the later stage. The respondent has not at all alleged that the G Forms are bogus or counterfeit because they clearly bear the authentic seal and signature of the assessing authority of the manufacturers. Hence, the Forms by themselves are validly obtained by manufacturers from their assessing authorities under the Act and Rules. The fact that the G Forms are not yet filled up is only a curable defect which the petitioner can always rectify by approaching the buyers to fill up. Section 30(9) being penal in nature, it can only apply to a form obtained from a source other than departmental authorities but can have no application to the forms issued by the eligible buyers on the pretext that they are blank." 6. It may also be appropriate to have a look at the charge-sheet and the allegations made in it at paras 8 to 13 which read as hereunder: "It is submitted that on 4-4-2002 during the inspection of the complainant along with the C.T.O.-1, Karimnagar and staff of Karimnagar Division, it was noticed that the declarations in Form "G" were found as blank in separate in separate bundles of 11-A, 11-B, 11-C and 11-D with M/s. Kesoram Cement and as such took the same with their acceptance duly listed by the officials of the department and a copy of such list was furnished to the Management of Kesoram Cement. The list of blank "G" forms found as blank with Kesoram Cement took over by the Department are enclosed as document-2. Further, in order to evade tax at the higher rate of tax M/s. Kesoram Cement has not filed declarations in Form "G" along with the returns filed nor did they care to submit at least an application for extension of time for filing the "G" forms as required under Rule 30B(e)(ii) of APGST Rules, 1957. Further, in order to evade tax at the higher rate of tax M/s. Kesoram Cement has not filed declarations in Form "G" along with the returns filed nor did they care to submit at least an application for extension of time for filing the "G" forms as required under Rule 30B(e)(ii) of APGST Rules, 1957. The sales of cement said to be sold to the dealers manufacturers of Asbestos sheets and pipes has been taken up for cross verification. During the cross verification it is noticed that the cement has been sold to the dealers who are not existing at all and also to the dealers who used the cement for purposes other than manufacturing of Asbestos sheets, pipes, paint manufacturers using white cement, Hallow bricks (lists enclosed as document No.3 & 4). M/s. Kesoram Cement for the year 2001-2002 paid tax of Rs.30,88,387/- on a turnover of Rs.7,72,09,653/- at the rate of 4%. From the point of irregularities as mentioned above, the dealer is actually liable to tax at the rate of 16% which comes to Rs.1,23,53,544/-. Thus M/s. Keroram Cement fraudulently evaded tax of Rs.92,65,157/- (Rs. 1,23,53,544-00 - 30,88,387-00). The G.O.Ms.No.496 Rev. CT-II Department, dated 17-7-2001 clearly envisages that the cement when sold to a dealer who manufactures finished goods like Asbestos sheets, pipes, paints, manufacturers using white cement, Hallow bricks, that cement alone is eligible for concessional rate of tax. In all other cases though, the sellers effect the sales to the manufacturers of other cement goods is not eligible for concessional rate of tax. But M/s. Kesoram Cement effected the sales to the dealers other than the manufacturers of Asbestos sheets, pipes, paints, manufacturers using white cement, Hallow bricks. Thus M/s. Kesoram Cements violated the G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 17-7-2001 which caused loss of revenue of Rs.92,65,157-00 to the state exchequer. The true extract of sub-section (9) of Section 30 is reproduced as under: "Sub-section (9) of Section 30 of the APGST. Thus M/s. Kesoram Cements violated the G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 17-7-2001 which caused loss of revenue of Rs.92,65,157-00 to the state exchequer. The true extract of sub-section (9) of Section 30 is reproduced as under: "Sub-section (9) of Section 30 of the APGST. "Any person who is in possession of any form as may be notified which has not been obtained by him or by his principal or by his agent in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine or with both and when the offence is a continuing offence with a fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues." The offence is revealed on 4-4-2002 within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Peddapalli. Thus, as required under proviso to Section 5-B of the APGST Act, 1957 M/s. Kesoram Cement shall be in possession of duly filled in declaration in Form "G". But, M/s. Kesoram Cement is collecting "G" forms in blank from the purchasers with a fraudulent motive of evading higher rate of tax on cement which is an offence falling under subsection (9) of the Section 30 of the APGST Act and liable for punishment." 7. It is needless to say that several of the factual details had been narrated. Strong reliance was place in Schluberger Seaco Ink, Rajahmundry v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 22 APSTJ page 171. It was decided by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal following the decision of the Apex Court in Calama Process Pumps, Hyderabad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 18 STC page 221, which was upheld by the High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Schlubargar Ink, Rajahmundry, 24 APSTJ page 268. Further it is also appropriate to have a look at Section 30(9) of the Act which reads as hereunder. Further it is also appropriate to have a look at Section 30(9) of the Act which reads as hereunder. "Any person who is in possession of any form as may be notified which has not been obtained by him or by his principal or by his agent in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine or with both and when the offence is a continuing offence with a fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues." Likewise Rule 30-B of the Rules reads as hereunder: "Every manufacturer shall prepare a declaration in Form "G" in triplicate and issue the original and duplicate thereof to the dealer from whom he purchases raw materials, component parts, subassembly parts, intermediate parts, and packing material under Clause (a) and any other goods notified by the Government under Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 5-B at the concessional rate of tax." 8. On the overall appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court in fact entertained a doubt as to the existence or otherwise of any notification in relation thereto. No doubt there is some controversy between the parties relating to the applicability of notification in question which had been brought before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that according to Section 30(9) of the Act unless the documents issued were bogus or counterfeit, the provisions of the Section are not applicable. The applicability or otherwise of Section 30 (9) of the Act and the contentions raised by the learned counsel also may have to be considered at the appropriate stage. 10. Be that as it may, in the light of the several allegations made in the charge-sheet in general, in paras 8 to 13, in particular this Court is of the considered opinion that these are all factual aspects which may have to be gone into at appropriate stage and this is not a fit case to interfere with under Section 482 of the Code. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to raise these defences at the appropriate stage. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.