THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.16952, 16962, 16964, 17253, 17941, 17945, 17950 17956, 17960, 18106 and 19334 of 2011 Dated:14.07.2011 Between: M/s.Dekars Fire & Security Systems Pvt.Ltd., And others. … Petitio And The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.16952, 16962, 16964, 17253, 17941, 17945, 17950 17956, 17960, 18106 and 19334 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These writ petitions are filed by Value Added Tax dealers within territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers in Hyderabad and Chi Districts. They impugn the assessment orders, penalty orders as well as orders for payment of interest (impugned orders), which were passed by a territorial Officer of the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/Commercial Officer sequel to an audit conducted by them in purported exercise authorization issued by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners of Comme Taxes. All the petitioners contend that the impugned orders passed pursua audit are unsustainable as being without jurisdiction as the De Commissioner only authorized audit of the value added tax accounts of petitioners and there was no specific authorization to undertake assessm They placed strong reliance on the decision of this Bench in Balaji Flour Mil the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, Chittoor District[1]. As the issu only limited to this aspect, we refrain from summing up the factual backgroun all these cases which indeed is not necessary. In some of the writ petitions the Officer who passed the impugned or filed counter affidavit. He would submit that the assessment order, having b passed as per the authorization audit – cum – assessment programme issue 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, these writ petitions shall stand disposed of in following manner. The assessment orders/penalty orders/orders for payment of interest s stand set aside. The matters shall now go to the Audit Officers (who pas orders), who shall submit audit reports to the Deputy Commissioner appropriate action in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Balaji F Mills. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that if any of the dea in these matters, have already availed the remedy of appeal under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the appellate orders s also stand set aside on this ground. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 14.07.2011 vs [1] (2011) VST 40 150 (A.P.)