HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7099 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 24771 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 14267 OF 2011 Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of August, Two Thousand and Eleven Between WP No. 24771 OF 2008 M/s. Novo Agri Tech Limited, Pashamylaram, Patancheruru Mandal, Rep. by its Managing Director J.Sobhanadri Petitioner AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Kamareddy, Medak District and another Respondents WP No. 7099 OF 2009 M/s. Rayalaseema Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd., Ahuja Estate, Abids, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Indra Karan Agarwal. Petitioner AND The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, N.S. Road Circle, Hyderabad Respondent WP No. 14267 OF 2011 M/s. Neeta Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd., Basanth Talkies Lane, Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Mr. S.Rajasekhar Petitioner AND The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vidyanagar Circle, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: COMMON ORDER(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) These three writ petitions challenge the orders of assessment passed by the respective respondents under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the relevant periods considered in the several orders. The challenge to the orders of assessment is inter alia on the ground that the respective respondents were not authorized by the Deputy Commissioner concerned to carryout the assessment. Sri Balaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes on instructions submits and it is also the admitted factual scenario from the counter affidavit filed in WP No. 7099 of 2009 that there was no specific authorization to the respective respondents to pass the orders of assessment. It is also fairly stated by Sri Balaji Varma that in view of the decision of this Court in Sri Balaji Flour Mils Vs. Commercial Tax Officer – II, Chittoor and others([1]) in the absence of specific authorization for making assessment, the respondent have no such power and that the authorization to audit under Sec. 43 of the Act and Item (7) in the Table under Rule 59(1) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 per se does not enable the Audit Officer to undertake the assessment. In the light of the fact that the respondents in the writ petitions were not authorized to undertake the assessment and in view of the law declared in Sri Balaji Flour Mills case (supra), the orders of assessments impugned in the several writ petitions cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. However it is open to the authorized and competent officer to pass fresh orders of assessment and in doing so, none of the observations, findings and conclusions recorded in the impugned orders of assessment shall be relied upon. The fresh orders of assessment shall be passed on the basis of the material available on record and on independent assessment and analysis of the material on record. The writ petitions are allowed as above, but in the circumstances without costs. ______________________ Justice Goda Raghuram _______________________ Justice N.Ravi Shankar August 16, 2011 MAS [1] (2011) 40 VST 150 (AP)