THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14786 of 2011 June 17, 2011 Between: M/s.Lyophilization Systems (I) (P) Ltd., Hyderabad Represented by its Director Mr.D.Narendar … Petitioner And The State Level Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings, Nampally, Hyderabad And another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14786 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The classification of the first respondent Advance Ruling Authority dated 12.5.2011 in A.R.Com/72/2009 is under challenge in this writ petition as in violation of Section 67(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act) and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. It is also registered under the Central Excise Act, 1956 and claims to be paying central excise duty by clearing the goods manufactured by them in terms of Tariff Heading No.8419.50/8419.90 with respect to “Heat Exchange Units” and parts thereof. It is their case that, in terms of Entry No.102(2)(f)&(k) of Schedule IV to the Act, the goods manufactured by them i.e., Heat Exchange Units or parts thereof are liable to tax at 4%. For the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner submitted an application before the first respondent seeking an advance ruling regarding the rate of tax applicable to the goods manufactured by them. The first respondent ruled, by its clarification dated 30.11.2007, that Lyophilizers and their parts were taxable at 4% under Entry No.102(2)(f)&(k) of Schedule IV to the Act. Thereafter, one M/s.Daihan Labtech India (P) Ltd., sought a clarification in A.R.Com/72/2009 in respect of the rate of tax applicable to certain goods. The said dealer contended before the first respondent that the rate of tax applicable to laboratory equipment, water baths and Lyophilizers was in terms of the earlier Advance Ruling. The first respondent however, by its order under challenge in this writ petition, reviewed its earlier Advance Ruling dated 30.11.2007 and revoked the same holding that Lyophilizers were not Heat Exchange Units. While several contentions are raised in challenge to the validity of the said order, it would suffice to note that, while Section 67(5) of the Act enables the Authority for Advance Ruling to review its ruling at any time for good and sufficient cause, the affected party is required to be given an opportunity of being heard before the power to review is exercised. Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, would fairly state that the petitioner, at whose behest the earlier ruling was made, was not put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard. Exercise of power of review by the Advance Ruling Authority is in violation of Section 67(5) of the Act in as much as the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of being heard before the earlier ruling was reviewed. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the impugned ruling of the first respondent. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the first respondent from complying with Section 67(5) of the Act, and thereafter review its earlier ruling in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, no costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) June 17, 2011 YS