THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11780 of 2011 June 07, 2011 Between: M/s.Santhi Boilers & Pressure Vessels (P) Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Mr.Amit Trivedi … Petitioner And The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11780 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of the first respondent dated 08.3.2011 is under challenge in this writ petition, as being illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of boilers, is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the VAT Act). For the years 2005-06 to 2008-09, the second respondent audited the books of accounts of the petitioner as authorized by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. He passed an order of assessment dated 30.1.2009 aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 31 of the VAT Act before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division on 20.3.2009. The said appeal was transferred to the third respondent, by order dated 25.10.2010. In the grounds of appeal, the petitioner herein contended that in the absence of any authorization to the Audit Officer, as contemplated under Rule 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the VAT Rules), the second respondent had no authorization to assess the petitioner to tax and as such the assessment order passed by the second respondent was without jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in Sri Balaji Floor Mills v CTO[1] held that in the absence of specific authorization by the Deputy Commissioner to any of the officers to undertake assessment, no assessment order can be passed by him in as much as he has no territorial assessment authority. Though a specific contention referred to herein above was raised in the appeal, the first respondent failed to consider the same and passed the order under challenge. When the matter was listed before us on 06.6.2011, we adjourned the matter to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Today when the matter is called, the learned Standing Counsel fairly states that the Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division had not granted authorization in favour of the second respondent to assess the petitioner to tax. Since this question had been specifically raised in the appeal, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order under challenge in this writ petition, and remand the matter to the first respondent who shall, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, pass orders afresh in the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) June 07, 2011 YS [1] (2011) 40 VST 150 (AP)