IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 12961, 13281, 13314, 13332 AND 13485 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO : 12961 of 2009 Between: M/S.ARUNODYA ENGINEERING Plot No.29 Phase V Jeedimetla,Hyderabad Rep.by its Proprietrix B.Joythi D/o. P.Gopal Reddy (38) Years Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Commerical Taxes Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J Road, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad Circle, Gagan Vihar Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Commercial Tax Officer Fathenagar Circle,Gagan Vihar Complex M.J.Road, Nampally,Hyderabad 4 The Commercial Tax Officer Jeedimetla Circle,Gagan Vihar Complex M.J.Road Nampally,Hyderabad 5 The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer(SP&A) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Musheerabad,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Circular of the 1st respondent dated 30-12- 2008 in CCT's Ref No.No.LV(1)/892/2008 and the constitutional assessment of VAT issued by the 3rd respondent in From VAT 305 on 23-03-2009 served on the petitioner on 22-05-2009 for the tax period 2006-07 to 2008-09 as illegal improper unjust arbitrary without authority of law and without jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of the Act as well the Judgments of this Hon'ble Court in 44 APSTJ p 46,52 and 45 APSTJ P.53 and grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes WRIT PETITION NO : 13281 of 2009 Between: M/s SRI SIDHI VINAYAKA COACH BUILDERS, Plot No.5- 55/12/A, Dhoolapally(V), Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.Disttrct. Rep by its Partner, S.Ramesh Reddy, S/o. S.Govind Reddy, aged 35, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 2 The Commercial Tax officer, IDA Gandhinagar Circle, Gaganvihar complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla Circle, Gaganvihar Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, (SP&A) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Circular of the 1st Respondent dated 30-12-2008 in CCt's Ref.No.Lv(1)/892/2008 and the consequential assessment of VAT and penalties issued by the 2nd respondent in Form VAT 305 and 203 on 30.05.2009 & 25.06.2009 served on the Petitioner on 13.06.2009 & 26.06.2009 for the tax period 4/2005 to 11/2008 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, without authority of law and without jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of the Act as well the judgments of this Hon'ble Court in 44 APSTJ P.46, 52 and 45 APSTJ P.53 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes WRIT PETITION NO : 13314 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sri Vinayaka Engilneering Industrry 5-55/28, Dhoolapally, Quthbullapur, Rep. by its Proprietor K. Srikanth S/o.K.L. Narayana 35 yrs, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer IDA Gandhinagar Circle, Gaganvihar Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla Circle, Gaganvihar Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, (SP & A) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Circular of the 1st Respondent dt. 30-12-2008 in CCT's Ref.No. LV (1)/892/2008 and the consequential assessment of VAT and penalties issued by the 2nd respondent in Form VAT- 305 and 203 on 30-5-2009 & 25-6-2009 served on the petitioner on 13-6-2009 & 26-6-2009 for the tax period 8/2006 to 12/2008 as illegal , improper, unjust, arbitrary without authority of law and without jurisdiction and also contrary to the Provisions of the Act as well the Judgments of this Hon'ble Court in 44 APSTJ p. 46, 52 and 45 APSTJ p.53 and grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes WRIT PETITION NO : 13332 of 2009 Between: M/s Shreedevi Industries, Plot No.11/2, Cooperative Industria Estate, Rep by its Managing Partner, A.Srinivasan, S/o. A.Ramulu, aged 38, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 2 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, Jeedimetla Circle, Gagavihar Comples, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 3 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IDA Gandhinagar Circle, Gaganvihar complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 4 The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, (SP & A) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Circular of the 1st Respondent dated 30.12.2008 in CCT'S Ref No.LV (1)/892/2008 and the consequential assessment of VAT and penalties issued by the 2nd Respondent in Form VAT 305 and 203 on 30-05- 2009 served on the Petitioner on 01.06.2009 for the tax period 4/2005 to 12/2008 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, without authority of law and without jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of the Act as well the judgments of this Hon'ble Court in 44 APSTJ P.46, 52 and 45 APSTJ P.53 and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes WRIT PETITION NO : 13485 of 2009 Between: M/S NAGAMURALI ENGIENERING PVT LTD. plot No.7-587/2, Pipe Line road, jeedimetla, Rep by its Managing Partner, P.Ravindranath Reddy, S/o. Vema Reddy, aged 40, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioenr of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 2 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IDA Gandhinagar Circle, Gaganvihar Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 3 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, Jeedimetla Circle, Gaganvihar complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 4 The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, (SP & A) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Circular of the 1st Respondent dated 30.12.2008 in CCT'S Ref No.LV (1)/892/2008 and the consequential assessment of VAT and penalties issued by the 2nd Respondent in Form VAT 305 and 203A on 18-06- 2009 served on the Petitioner on 26.06.2009 for the tax period 2005-06 to 10/2008 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, without authority of law and without jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of the Act as well the judgments of this Hon'ble Court in 44 APSTJ P.46, 52 and 45 APSTJ P.53 and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) As common legal issues are involved in these petitions, all the petitions are heard together. Each petition is admitted and at the request of the learned advocates, the petitions are finally heard today. 2. The common grievance which has been ventilated in this group of petitions is that without considering the contents of the agreements entered into between the contractors and the contractees, the concerned assessing officers have decided the nature of transactions and have passed the assessment orders. 3. The aforestated fact could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. In the circumstances, without going into the facts of each case, the impugned assessment orders are quashed and set aside. 5. At the request of the learned advocates, it is directed that the assessment orders shall be treated as show cause notices so that the petitioners can file their objections. The objections shall be filed within two weeks from today. After the objections are filed, the petitioners shall be heard on 10-08-2009 at 11.00 AM by the concerned assessing officer. It is clarified that no notice with regard to the personal hearing shall be given to the petitioners as the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has waived service of notice. 6. After hearing the concerned petitioner/representative of the petitioner and after considering the objections filed by the petitioners, the assessing officer shall make assessment in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above order, the petitions stand disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 16th July, 2009 ks