THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19620 of 2011 Dated:15.07.2011 Between: M/s.Sri Venkateswara Traders. … Petitio And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT), Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19620 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This writ petition is filed by a Value Added Tax dealer on the rolls o third respondent. They impugn the assessment order and the penalty s cause notice (impugned orders), which were passed by a non territorial Offic the rank of Commercial Tax Officer sequel to an audit conducted by him purported exercise of authorization issued by the jurisdictional De Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders passed pursuan audit are unsustainable as being without jurisdiction as the De Commissioner only authorized audit of the value added tax accounts of petitioner and there was no specific authorization to undertake assessm Petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of this Bench in Balaji F Mills v. the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, Chittoor District[1]. The Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents has placed before this Court a copy of the Authorization of Au cum – Assessment Program. He submits that the assessment order having b passed as per the Authorization of Audit – cum – Assessment Program iss by the Deputy Commissioner, the orders impeached are sustainable. authorization, in Form ADM 1B as per the Audit Manual, is a compo authorization. The Deputy Commissioner authorized the Officer to audit value added tax dealer and to assess, if required. It is brought to our notice after this Bench delivered the judgment in Balaji Flour Mills, the Commissio of Commercial Taxes issued a Circular bearing No.CCT’s Ref.AIII(1)/15/2 dated 31.01.2010, amending Form ADM 1B, “so that a single authorization be issued for both audit and assessment to the officers concerned”. This indeed, been put in issue before us as being in deviation from the ratio in B Flour Mills. Our attention has been invited to paragraphs 46, 50 and 59 in B Flour Mills. In sum and substance this Bench laid down that authorization audit of value added tax dealer and authorization to undertake assessm pursuant to such audit are two distinct requirements, and the former alone w not suffice for undertaking the assessment. The Special Counsel Commercial Taxes does not seriously dispute the legal position having rega the judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra. I n Balaji Flour Mills, placed in such a situation, we set aside assessment orders and remitted the matters to the respective Audit Officers a direction to submit audit reports as contemplated under Chapter VII of Value Added Tax Audit Manual for appropriate post audit action. If jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner issues separate orders authori assessment, then only those Officers can undertake assessment in accorda with law (See paragraphs 59(b) and (c) of Balaji Flour Mills). Following the same, this writ petition shall stand disposed of in following manner. The assessment order and the penalty show cause notice shall stand aside. The matter shall now go to the Audit Officer (who passed orders), shall submit audit report to the Deputy Commissioner for appropriate actio accordance with the judgment of this Court in Balaji Flour Mills. This exer shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt copy of this order. We make it clear that if the dealer has already availed remedy of appeal under Section 31(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Act, 2005, the appellate order shall also stand set aside on this ground. T shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 15.07.2011 vs [1] (2011) VST 40 150 (A.P)