IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. NOs : 26662; 26644 and 26667 of 2007 WRIT PETITION NO : 26662 of 2007 Between: M/s.Maitreya Electricals Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.48, Industrial Estate, Vijayawada, represented by its Chairman P.Parandhamaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial tax Officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P., Vijayawada,Krishna District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned consequential assessment order passed by the respondent in Rc.VJ2/04/2/1296/2000-2001 dated 01-11-2007 for the assessment year 2000-2001 APGST pursuant to the remand order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.,) Vijayawada in Appeal No.VJA.II/123/2006-2007, as illegal, unjustified, violative of the priciples of natural justice and violative of the remand directions, and pass suchother order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX WRIT PETITION NO : 26644 of 2007 Between: M/s.Maitreya Electricals Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.48, Industrial Estate, Vijayawada, represented by its Chairman P.Parandhamaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial tax Officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P., Vijayawada,Krishna District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned consequential assessment order passed by the respondent in Rc.VJ2/04/2/1296/2001-2002 dated 01-11-2007 for the assessment year 2001-2002 APGST pursuant to the remand order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.,) Vijayawada in Appeal No.VJA.II/124/2006-2007, as illegal, unjustified, violative of the priciples of natural justice and violative of the remand directions, and pass suchother order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : WRIT PETITION NO : 26667 of 2007 Between: M/s. Maitreya Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 48, Industrial Estate, Vijayawada, rep by its chairman P. Parandhamaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial tax officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna district, A.P. Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned consequential assessment order passed bythe Respondnet in Rc. VJ2/04/2/1296/2002-2003 dated 01-11-2007 for the Assessment year 2002-2003 APGST pursuant to the remand order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada in Appeal No. VJA.II/125/2006-07 as illegal, unjustified violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of the remand directions, and ass such other order or orders as may be deemed fitand proper inthe cirucmstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following common: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.26662; 26644 and 26667 of 2007 Oral Common Order: (Per: GR, J) These three writ petitions are by the assessee and are directed against three orders all dated 01-11-2007 of the Commercial Tax Officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District – the respondent – passing the orders of assessment for the years 2000-01; 2001-02 and 2002-03 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Initially, the orders of assessment were passed in the year 2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeals to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. By different orders in the year 2005, the original orders of assessment for the respective years were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Authority for adjudication de novo setting out the parameters for the fresh assessment. In 2006, the respondent passed fresh orders of assessment purportedly in terms of the orders of remand. Aggrieved thereby and alleging transgression by the Assessing Authority of the directions of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes setting aside the orders of assessment and remanding the matters for de novo enquiry, the petitioner preferred appeals again. By the common order dated 31-10-2006 (for the three assessment years aforementioned) the appellate authority set aside the three orders of assessment for the years 2000-01; 2001-02 and 2002-03 and remanded the matters to the respondent directing a de novo assessment after clearly recording that the Assessing Authority failed to follow the directions of the appellate authority in the earlier orders remanding the matter and directing de novo determination. After the orders of the appellate authority dated 31- 10-2006 the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 26-06-2007 calling upon the assessee to file objections. Notices were served on 19-07-2007 and in response thereto, the assesee on 02-08-2007 intimated to the respondent that it has preferred second appeals against the orders of the appellate authority before the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam on 21-11-2007 and requested the respondent -- Assessing Authority to defer the re-determination for the three assessment years till the disposal of the appeals by the STAT. Thereupon the respondent by an endorsement dated 03-09-2007 informed the assesee that filing of an appeal before the STAT per se does not constitute a bar to the jurisdiction of the authority to pass orders of assessment and responding to the assesse’s request for further time for filing objections, granted 15 days. In response thereto, the assessee by a letter dated 05-10-2007 reiterated that the respondent should not pass assessment orders since the assessee had preferred appeals to the STAT and the authority had adequate time to pass an order of assessment. The respondent thereupon proceeded to pass orders of assessment and determined the tax liability of the petitioner afresh for the three assessment years. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax. There is a curious pattern to the meandering orders of assessment by the respondent. In the first order of assessment dated 31-03-2004 the respondent arrived at a net turnover of Rs. 28,37,542-00 after administering an exempted turnover of Rs.78,87,550-00 on a gross turnover of Rs.1,07,25,100-00. On this assessment, the respondent determined the tax due at Rs.2,27,003-00. In the second round of assessment (after the remand), the respondent determined the net turnover at Rs.80,43,821-00 and the tax liability thereon at Rs.6,43,506-00. After the second remand by the order of the appellate authority dated 31-10-2006, by the impugned order of assessment dated 01-11-2007 the respondent determined the net turnover as Rs.99,05,885-00 and the tax at Rs. 7,92,471-00. There is clearly an error in the application of the exempted turn over and the respondent is seen to have committed a patent error in failing to apply exemption under Rule 6 (B) (ii)(a)(v) of A.P.G.S.T. Rules, 1957. The learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondent does not dispute this apparent and clear error. Accordingly the impugned order of assessment dated 01-11-2007 passed by the respondent for the assessment years 2000-01; 2001-02 and 2002-03 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The respondent shall now proceed to make a fresh order of assessment in conformity with the directions by the appellate authority in the common order dated 31- 10-2006 and after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner to submit the books of accounts and any other objections for the purpose of the said assessments. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the position that the petitioner will now produce the books of accounts within the period to be stipulated in the show cause notice by the respondent without reiterating pleas as to the pendency of the appeals before the STAT. On and if the petitioner produces the books of accounts within the stipulated date and files any memorandum of objections, the respondent will proceed to decide and pass orders of assessment on the basis of such record and duly considering the memorandum of objections. If the petitioner fails to produce the books of accounts and offer objections, if any, the respondent may proceed to pass a best judgment assessment on the basis of the available record. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J Dated: 22-12-2008 Pvks