* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN + WRIT PETITION Nos.28886, 28892, 28901 and 28910 of 2010 % Dated: 26.11.2010 M/s.Pest Control (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Represented by its Assistant Divisional Manager, Sri V.Sridhar …Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int)., Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad And others …Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.S.Krishna Murthy; S.Suri Babu ^Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes <Gist: >Head Note: ? Citations: 1. (2005) 142 STC 1 2. (1989) 75 STC 188 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.28886, 28892, 28901 and 28910 of 2010 November 26, 2010 Between: M/s.Pest Control (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Represented by its Assistant Divisional Manager, Sri V.Sridhar …Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int)., Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.28886, 28892, 28901 and 28910 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri V.V.S.Rao) M/s.Pest Conrol (India) Pvt. Ltd., an incorporated entity having head office at Mumbai, is a Valued Added Tax (VAT) dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. The Assistant Commissioner (Investigation) – first respondent herein; on verifying the records assessed output tax under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act) for the periods 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009- 10 and issued a notice. The petitioner submitted explanation inter alia contending that the “pest control services” are not liable to sales tax. They relied on the decisions of Kerala and Patna High Courts as well as the decision of Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v Gujarat Ambuja Cements[1]. The first respondent allegedly considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner on two occasions during the assessment proceedings, rejected the objections raised and came to the conclusion that the transactions of pest management solutions provided by the petitioner are liable to tax under Section 4(7)(a) of VAT Act as works contracts and accordingly levied the tax. Four different orders as detailed herein below were passed which are challenged in these writ petitions. Sl. No. Writ Petition No. Assessment year Date of assessment order Amount of tax levied 1. 28901 of 2010 2006-07 30.8.2010 Rs.32,41,875 2. 28886 of 2010 2007-08 30.8.2010 Rs.45,26,737 3. 28892 of 2010 2008-09 30.8.2010 Rs.55,97,198 4. 28910 of 2010 2009-10 (upto November 2009) 30.8.2010 Rs.38,28,473 During the preliminary hearing on 22.11.2010, we were very concerned about the way the assessing officer under VAT Act considered the matters while exercising quasi judicial functions. The law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court with regard to the approach to be bestowed by the assessing officers while assessing the sales tax or VAT were followed more in breach. The basic principles of quasi judicial exercise and drafting of order were ignored. We therefore summoned the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Investigations), Mr.Rajasekhar, and also expressed the Court’s displeasure for the way the officer dealt with the matter. The impugned order (in W.P.No.28901 of 2010) run into 23 pages (computer typed in single line with font size of ‘10’). Pages 1 and 2 purportedly summarised the explanation for the tax proposals. Starting in page 2 to 9, the first respondent summarized the judgment of Patna High Court in Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India[2]. In pages 9 to 21 the entire explanation of the objections submitted by the petitioner was extracted in verbatim. In pages 22 and 23, the officer laconically considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the transactions are taxable under Section 4(7)(a) of VAT Act. To say the least in mild terms, the order does not appear to be one as is expected from an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner who is conferred with very wide powers under VAT Act. We are deeply worried about the way the officers in the department of Commercial Taxes are dealing with the matters and passing the orders ignoring the importance of the department in collecting revenue by the State exchequer. The obligation to pass orders with quality is directly relatable to the accountability of public servant. When such obligation to pass quality orders is given a goby Constitutional remedy of judicial review is rendered futile. The officers cannot expect the Court to interfere in the matter and remand the matter for fresh consideration. It would be very prejudicial in the interest of Revenue to allow such orders to be passed by officers whatever their rank be. We are informed that there is also a Staff Training Institute attached to the Commissionerate. Is it discharging its functions properly? Special drive is required to train officers in passing quasi judicial orders keeping in view various principles laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court or at least the principles adumbrated in Order XX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. We do hope that better sense would prevail in the Commissionerate and the Government to give due attention to this aspect of the matter or else the assessing officers, the appellate Deputy Commissioners and revisional Commissioners instead of discharding the duties under VAT Act in aid of the State would be acting detrimental to the interest of the State and its revenue. As the impugned orders are bereft of objectivity and adequate reasons and it is not possible for this Court which factors weighed with the assessing officer, we set aside the impugned orders in these writ petitions and remit the matters to the Assistant Commissioner for passing appropriate orders afresh keeping in view the principles herein above. The writ petitions, accordingly, stand disposed of. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) November 26, 2010. NOTE: L.R. Copy be marked. (By order) YS [1] (2005) 142 STC 1 [2] (1989) 75 STC 188