THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4793 of 2010 ORDER (per RR,J): The proceedings impugned in this writ petition is the show cause notice dated 08.02.2010 issued by the first respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar Circle, Secunderabad. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of mining machinery. It has its manufacturing unit and Head Office in the State of Gujarat. It has a branch office at Secunderabad established solely for the purpose of stocking spare parts for supply, under warranty, exclusively to M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The Secunderabad branch office of the petitioner company is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. The petitioner company surrendered its registration certificate on 31.05.2005 on the ground that there was no stock transfer of spares from its head office to Secunderabad branch. It is their case that they obtained a fresh registration certificate under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the VAT Act’) for their Godavarikani branch w.e.f. 19.02.2005; they are assessees on the rolls of the second respondent; as spare parts are being supplied only through Godavarikani branch it is convenient for them to carry on business from the Godavarikani branch instead of from the Secunderabad branch. In the impugned show cause notice the first respondent takes note of the fact that the petitioner did not have any valid registration certificate under the VAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 from 01.04.2005. The Authority, however, records that the petitioner had approached the department for Form-F declarations for the year 2005- 06; the details furnished disclose that the petitioner had received goods worth Rs.3,21,89,605/-; and the petitioner was neither registered with the Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar Circle nor had they filed VAT returns for the year 2005-06. The first respondent determined the sale value, of the stock transferred from Jamsedpur to Hyderabad, at Rs.3,86,27,526/- and sought to levy tax thereupon @ 12.5% i.e., for Rs.48,28,441/-. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the under-declared output tax should not be declared for the year 2005-06. Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been regularly submitting their monthly VAT returns; and they had declared a turnover of Rs.3,21,89,604.82 ps. along with the returns submitted by them before the second respondent. It is their case that, since they had submitted periodical returns to the second respondent, it is he who is entitled to assess the petitioner and not the first respondent. It is evident, from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that these facts have not been brought to the notice of the first respondent. As the impugned proceedings is only a show cause notice, we consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a reply thereto furnishing all the aforesaid details in support of their claim that, as they have already been assessed by the second respondent, the first respondent does not have jurisdiction. Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the very jurisdiction of the first respondent to initiate action against the petitioner, even though they had surrendered the registration certificate as early as in the year 2005, is in question the writ petition is maintainable and this Court should adjudicate the question as to whether the first respondent has jurisdiction or not. While the jurisdiction of the first respondent is no doubt in issue, the fact remains that several factual aspects have to be ascertained by the first respondent and, it is if only he satisfied that the very same turnover has been subjected to tax, and returns have been filed before the second respondent, would he be disentitled from exercising jurisdiction to assess the petitioner to tax. We see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition of this nature. In case the petitioner files their objections to the show cause notice within two weeks from today, the first respondent shall consider the same, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Needless to state that it is always open to the petitioner, if it is aggrieved by any order passed by the first respondent including on the question of jurisdiction, to question the same in appropriate proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 22.06.2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J va