THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9024 of 2011 July 01, 2011 Between: M/s.Social Computers, 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur represented by its Senior Manager, Mr.A.Prasad ... Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner, VAT Management Unit – II, Narasaraopet Division, Guntur And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9024 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The order of the first respondent dated 28.2.2011, levying tax under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act, for brevity), is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner also questions the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in assessing the petitioner to tax on the ground that he is not the jurisdictional assessing officer, and he has not been authorized by the Deputy Commissioner to assess the petitioner to tax. This Bench in Balaji Flour Mills v. the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, Chittoor District[1] has considered the validity of the self same rule, as well as the question whether the authorization for audit given by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 59(1)(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the Rules) read with Section 43 of the Act enables the Audit Officer to also undertake assessment for the relevant period. The question was answered in the negative. The conclusions in the judgment dated 30.12.2010 are as follows. (a) In the result, in the analysis and for the reasons as above, we reject the relief to declare Rule 59(1)(4)(ii)(b) and (d) of the VAT Rules as ultra vires. We also declare that sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 17 do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity and are valid. We also reject all other prayers for declaring the impugned rule and impugned assessment orders as ultra vires or invalid except to the extent indicated in (b) and (c) below; (b) In view of our holding that the authorisation to audit under Section 43 read with Rule 59(1)(7) by itself does not enable audit officer to undertake assessment, we set aside all the assessment orders and consequential orders, if any under Section 53 of the VAT Act, in all the writ petitions; (c) All the impugned assessment orders shall stand remitted to the respective audit officers who shall submit audit reports as contemplated under Chapter VII of the VAT Audit Manual for appropriate Post Audit Action. If the competent controlling and/or supervising authority like Deputy Commissioner issues separate orders authorizing assessment, it shall be open to such authorizing officer or authority prescribed, as the case may be, to undertake assessment in accordance with law. Following the same, the impugned assessment order is set aside, and the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) July 01, 2011 YS [1] (2011) VST 40 150 (A.P.)