THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26384 of 2010 Dated:22.11.2010 Between: M/s.Rainbow Ply Lam. …Petitioner and The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Charminar Circle, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26384 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a registered Value Added Tax dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mehdipatnam Circle. A consignment of 2800 paper laminated sheets coming from Rajpur of Gujarat was seized along with the vehicle by the second respondent on 14.10.2010 on the ground, “the said vehicle started from Gujarat on 06.10.2010 and entered into Andhra Pradesh border on 10.10.2010 midnight, but it was not checked at any check post”. It appears, on 11.10.2010 the first respondent detained the goods at the check post and accordingly informed the petitioner. Three days thereafter, the second respondent issued notice of seizure. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Inter alia, it is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has no power or jurisdiction to detain the goods and that the second respondent’s notice of seizure is irrational and unreasonable. We directed filing of the counter. The authority of the first respondent to detain the goods is sought to be justified relying on a notification bearing No.CCT’s Ref.JC(CT) Enft.D2/723/05, dated 15.06.2005, purported to have been issued under Rule 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the Rules), by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is also urged that by the said notification issued under Rule 55(2) of the Rules, laminated sheets being sensitive goods, any dealer involving in interstate trade is required to get the consignment checked at the check post established under Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act). A counter affidavit is filed to that effect. The matter was initially heard on 08th and 10th of November 2010. As the notice is already issued, we gave liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent Nos.1 and 2 for release of the detained goods subject to the Commercial Tax Authorities taking appropriate action under the provisions of the VAT Act. Today, it is brought to our notice that the goods seized on 11.10.2010 were released and a notice is issued. Therefore, we leave open the questions raised in this writ petition, especially, the question of competence of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to detain the goods and issue of notice by the second respondent for seizure of the goods without there being a proper assessment order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 22.11.2010 vs