THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17976 of 2010 August 10, 2010 Between: M/s.MAYTAS-NCC (JV), Hyderabad, represented by its Authorized Signatory, Shri B.A.N.Raju … Petitioner And Assistant Commissioner (CT)-III, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17976 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and, at their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner filed its returns for the period from April 2006 to March 2007 before the second respondent. The first respondent inspected the business premises of the petitioner and verified the books of accounts. Thereafter, he issued show cause notice dated 07.12.2007 alleging that the correct amount of Value Added Tax (VAT) had not been declared in the VAT 200 returns, and accordingly proposed to make the assessment determining the output tax as Rs.17,40,77,759/-. The first respondent also adjusted the input tax of Rs.80,09,648/- and TDS/TCS of Rs.8,83,59,358/- and arrived at the balance tax payable as Rs.7,77,08,726/-. The petitioner submitted their objections after which the first respondent passed the assessment order dated 13.5.2010 assessing the petitioner to tax of Rs.11,14,40,781/-. The said order of assessment was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.14415 of 2010 and the Division Bench, by order dated 21.7.2010, quashed the impugned order of assessment dated 13.5.2010. The Division Bench directed the second respondent to pass a fresh order of assessment, after issuing appropriate notice to the petitioner. In the interregnum, the first respondent passed an order on 19.6.2010 levying penalty of Rs.2,78,60,195/-. The said order of penalty is under challenge in this writ petition on several grounds. It is wholly unnecessary to examine the said contentions on its merits and it would suffice to note that the order of penalty dated 19.6.2010 was passed consequent to the order of assessment dated 13.5.2010. As the said order of assessment itself has been quashed by this Court, by its order dated 21.7.2010 in W.P.No.14415 of 2010, the consequential order of penalty must necessarily be and is, accordingly, quashed. It is however made clear that, after a fresh order of assessment is passed, it is open to the respondents, if they consider it necessary, to initiate appropriate penalty proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) August 10, 2010 YS