THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.12683 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri Shaik Jilani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is a registered VAT dealer and is engaged in the sale of drugs and medicines at Kurnool. The petitioner claims to have submitted monthly VAT returns before the first respondent, for the tax period from April 2005 to October 2006, and to have paid the tax due on such turnover, after claiming input tax credit in terms of Section 13 of the VAT Act. While matters stood thus, the first respondent visited the business premises of the petitioner and issued a notice of assessment of VAT, in Form VAT 305A on 21.09.2007, proposing to assess the petitioner for the tax period from 01.04.2005 to 31.10.2006, and also proposing to levy penalty and interest. Sri Shaik Jilani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the first respondent, without verifying the monthly returns filed by the petitioner and the taxes paid by them thereon, and without giving adequate opportunity, had passed the impugned order of assessment levying not only tax but also penalty and interest. Learned counsel would rely on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Falcon Tyres Ltd., v. State of Karnataka (SC)[1] in support of his contention that a common order of assessment levying tax, interest and penalty cannot be passed. Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would fairly concede that such an order could not have been passed, and that this Court may set aside the order to the limited extent interest and penalty were levied, permitting the respondent to pass an order afresh, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. As a result the impugned order to the extent the respondents levied interest and penalty, is set aside leaving it open to the assessing authority to pass an order afresh, after putting the petitioner on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that the order of assessment to the extent tax was levied is not being interfered with in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 14th June 2010 RRB [1] (2006) 147 STC 466 (SC)