IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WP.No. 142 of 2006, WP.No. 154 of 2008 AND WP.No. 28025 of 2005 Between: WP.No. 142 of 2006 M/s. Balaji Agro Oils Ltd., Davuluru (v), Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. … Petitioner V/s. The Commercial Tax Officer, Vuyyur, Krishna district. … Respondent WP.No. 154 of 2008. Between: M/s. Srihitha Refineries Ltd. Davuluru (v), Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna district. … Petitioner V/s. The Commercial Tax Officer, Vuyyur, Krishna district. … Respondent WP.No.28025 of 2005. Between: M/s. Balaji Agro Oils Ltd., Davuluru (v), Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. … Petitioner V/s. The Commercial Tax Officer, Vuyyur, Krishna district. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WP.No. 142 of 2006, WP.No. 154 of 2008 AND WP.No. 28025 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.262 of 2006, dated 09-04-2007. It is relevant to extract the said judgment as hereunder: O R D E R : Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Counter has been filed. It appears that an assessment was made on 04- 8-2005 granting exemption from payment of sales tax on the basis of an eligibility certificate. This order was revised by the Commercial Tax Officer by order dated 22-11-2005 and he noted in his order: “Hence, the adjustment of demand of Rs.13,89,627-00 is now withdrawn from tax Deferment by rectifying the above mistake apparent from the record and the assessment is revised under rule 10 of the CST Act.” We have gone through Rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. This Rule does not give any power to the assessing authority to revise the assessment. Obviously the order is without jurisdiction and without any power. This order cannot also be sustained on the ground that even if there was a power with the Commercial Tax Officer, it could not be exercised without giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner. It imposes a liability of about fourteen lakhs on the petitioner without even issuing a show cause notice. For these reasons, the order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. 3. Following the same, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.262 of 2006, dated 09-04-2007. 4. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE B . PRAKASH RAO _______________________________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN 22-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WP.No.142 of 2006, WP.No. 154 of 2008 & WP.No.28025 of 2005 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Circulation Entry No. Date: 22-06-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L