IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO : 25159 of 2009 Between: M/s. Aisin Engineering Co., Ltd., Hyderabad Branch, Showroom No.7, HUDA-DCC, Block—D, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, rep., by its Group Leader, SriS. Ravinath Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND Commercial Tax Officer, Tarnaka Circle, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY W.P.No. 25159 of 2009 Oral Order: (Per: GR, J) Though the writ petition is filed assailing the order of assessment dated 07-09-2009 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the year 2006-07, Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes having obtained instructions from the respondent states that the impugned order of assessment may not be sustainable, as the assessment was made without dealing with the objections dated 06-07-2009 lodged by the petitioner and received prior to the order of assessment and the objections therefor having not been considered while proceeding to assessment. The show cause notice dated 24-06-2009 was issued to the petitioner calling for written objections, if any, of the turnovers proposed. The transactions of the petitioner, a branch of a company incorporated in Kariyaity, Aichi, Japan, were reckoned as sales and the entire turnover treated as such for the purpose of determining liability under the Act. Dr. S.R.R. Viswanath, the leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in English Electric Company of India Ltd., vs., The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Others ((1976) 38 STC 475; Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., and another vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others (1985)60 STC 301 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.C.P. Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 88 STC 374 = (1992) 15 APSTJ 203; and of the High Court of Calcutta in Betts Hartley Huettand Co., Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1979) 116 ITR 425 (Cal) dispatches by a non-resident company situated in another country cannot be reckoned as a sale. In any event since it is conceded that the objections lodged by the petitioner on 06-07-2009 were not considered before passing the order of assessment impugned, the order of assessment dated 07-09-2009 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The respondent shall now be at liberty to proceed with the assessment after taking due note of the objections dated 06-07-2009 submitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission as above after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes for respondent. No costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J Dated: 21-12-2009 Pvks