THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.769 OF 2010 Dated:28.04.2011 Between: Mahaveer Buillon Corporation, 27-14-16, 6A, 3rd Floor, Jaihand Complex, Governorpet, Vijayawada, represented by its Proprietor, Ramesh Mehata, S/o.Sri Pukhraj, 50 years, R/o.Vijayawada .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Governorpet Circle, Vijayawada and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.769 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the VAT Act, for brevity) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act, for brevity), is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. His regular assessment was completed and on the purported exercise of the authority given by the third respondent, the second respondent conducted audit/inspection of the petitioner’s premises. This resulted in an order dated 31.10.2008 for the tax period July, 2008. After completion of the assessment, the Joint Commissioner revised the order of the appellate authority by order dated 12.03.2009. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a regular appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) which is pending. In spite of the same, the present writ petition is filed challenging the vires of Section 2(4) and Section 3A of the VAT Act and also the order of the revisional authority. The counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on our judgment in Balaji Flour Mills v. Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, Chittoor District[1] to contend that the authorization to second respondent was only for the purpose of audit and the same does not empower the second respondent to undertake assessment for the relevant period. However as the petitioner chose to file appeal before the STAT, we are not inclined to exercise the discretion. However, we give liberty to the petitioner to raise such plea before the STAT to sustain his appeal. The writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 28.04.2011 KH [1] W.P.No.855 of 2008 and batch, Dated 30.12.2010