THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28916 of 2011 Dated:08.11.2011 Between: M/s.R.K.Digital Shoppy. …Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Vasanthapeta, Proddatur, Kadapa District, A.P., And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28916 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act), on the rolls of the second respondent. For the period from January 2006 to January 2008 the first respondent completed the assessment vide order dated 30.04.2010. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool. The same was rejected on 16.05.2011. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the VAT Act before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (STAT). The same is pending. At that stage, he filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the assessment order passed by the first respondent. In Balaji Flour Mills v. the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, Chittoor District[1] a Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us (VVSR, J) construing Rule 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (VAT Rules), held that the authorization given by the Deputy Commissioner to audit the accounts of the dealer who was assessed earlier or not does not enable the authorized Audit Officer to undertake assessment. Relying strongly on the said view, the petitioner submits that when the second respondent is the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the impugned assessment by the first respondent purportedly acting under the authorization issued by the Deputy Commissioner to audit is unsustainable in view of the ratio in Balaji Flour Mills. There cannot be any dispute nor is it raised before us with regard to the ratio in Balaji Flour Mills which as of now is final. But the facts in this case are altogether different. Against the assessment order, the petitioner already approached the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. When the appeal was dismissed, he already filed a second appeal before the STAT which is pending. Nothing prevents the petitioner to raise the questions as are raised herein before the STAT and place reliance on Balaji Flour Mills. When the appeal is pending, nothing prevents the petitioner to raise the grounds before the statutory Tribunal. It is not proper for us to exercise the discretion. Therefore, we decline to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the STAT and raise all the grounds including the ground of limitation. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 08.11.2011 vs [1] (2011) VST 40 150 (A.P)