IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 23046 OF 2007 Dated : February 4, 2008 Between: M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Limited, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District, Rep. By its Chief Administrative Officer, Sri Ch. Seetharamaiah Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Large Tax Payer Unit, Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Abids Division, Hyderabad Respondent THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 23046 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 24.10.2007 issued by the respondent imposing penal interest of Rs.21,39,436/- on the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of paper and paperboards. It is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and an assessee on the rolls of the respondent. The petitioner was assessed by the respondent by order dated 24.10.2007 requiring it to pay a sum of Rs.1,91,31,163/- after denying the input tax credit on the purchase of coal, cement, iron and steel. While so, the respondent passed another order dated 24.10.2007 imposing interest of Rs.21,39,436/- and directed that the amount shall be paid within fifteen days. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reasons have been assigned while passing the order impugned and disallowing input tax on cement, iron and steel. Placing reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kamadhenu Feeds (P) Limited, Narakoduru, Chebrol Mandal, Guntur District, Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhichowk Circle, Tenali, Guntur District and Others, it is submitted that in similar circumstances, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. Therefore, it is sought for remand of the matter for fresh consideration in view of the objections raised by the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax, opposed the said submission, stating that the Officer has quoted Rule position for levying proposed tax and, as such, the question of assigning any reason while passing the order impugned, does not arise. On hearing the rival contentions and perusing the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, cited supra, we are of the opinion that it is mandatory on the part of the respondent to assign cogent reasons while assessing the tax. In the instant case, no such reasons have been assigned while assessing the tax at Rs.1,91,31,163/-, which is subject matter of WP No.24787 of 2007. Apart from that, the objections raised by the petitioner appear to have not been considered while passing the order impugned. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter relating to W.P. No. 24787 of 2007, wherein assessment of tax for the assessment year 2006-2007 was challenged, was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. In this background of the matter, we feel, it is a fit case wherein the matter can be remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration along with the subject matter in WP No. 24787 of 2007 and till a final order is passed with regard to the assessment of tax for the assessment year 2006-2007, no effect can be given to order dated 24.10.2007, impugned in this writ petition, imposing penal interest of Rs.21,39,436/-. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is allowed remanding the matter for fresh consideration and orders in accordance with law, along with the subject matter of WP No. 24787 of 2007 i.e. order dated 24.10.2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-2007. No order as to cost. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________ G.ROHINI, J. February 4, 2008 MAS