THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10239 of 2009 Dated:11.04.2011 Between: M/s.L.N.Swamy Transporters …Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle, 9th Floor, Gagan Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10239 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, a dealer engaged in transportation of petroleum products, the validity of Section 67(4)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act), is under challenge. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that transport charges are not liable to tax under Section 4(8) of the Act, and the action of the third respondent in proposing to pass assessment orders for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 upto 30.09.2008 by notice dated 08.04.2009, notwithstanding the fact that the first respondent has already initiated action with the same proposal, as illegal and without jurisdiction. With regards the challenge to the vires of Section 67(4)(iii) of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Tirupati Chemicals v. DCTO, Vijayawada[1] upheld the constitutional validity of the said provision. We see no reason, therefore, to examine the validity of the provision again in the present writ proceedings. While several contentions are raised in challenge to the proceedings of the first and third respondents it would suffice for the disposal of the writ petition to note that, while the first respondent had issued the notice on 09.03.2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the transport charges collected by him should not be taxed under Section 4(8) of the Act, the third respondent issued notice one month thereafter on 08.04.2009 proposing to tax the very same turnover under Section 4(8) of the Act. As the territorial Assessing Officer (first respondent) has already exercised jurisdiction and has issued a notice, the subsequent notice issued by the third respondent – Audit Officer, is clearly without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, quashed. With regards the challenge to the validity of the show cause notice issued by the first respondent we see no reason to examine the contentions raised before us as all these grounds can as well be raised before the first respondent. Leaving it open to the petitioner to submit their objections, and directing the first respondent to pass orders on merits in case these objections are filed within two weeks from today, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 11.04.2011 vs [1] W.P.Nos.1582 and 2219 of 2010, Dated 25.11.2010