THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Date: 23—08—2005 W.P. No. 18561 of 2005 Between: M/s Kamineni Health Services Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad …Petitioner. A n d The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT), Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No. 18561 of 2005 O R D E R: (per Sri B. Sudershan Reddy, J) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special standing counsel for the Department and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Rule nisi. The petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ declaring the impugned proceedings dated 13.7.2005 on the file of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) and the notice dated 10.8.2005 levying and demanding the entry tax of Rs.4,73,880/- at the rate of 12% on a turn over of Rs.39,49,000/- from the petitioner company as illegal and void. The petitioner, in response to the notice issued by the respondents requiring it to show cause as to why the entry tax at the rate of 12% according to A.P. Tax on Entry of Goods in Local Areas Act, 2001 and as per Item No.14 read with G.O.Ms.No.367, Revenue (CT.II) Department dated 22.6.2002 should not be collected from it, made a detailed representation. The petitioner was given notice requesting to pay tax on the turnover of Rs.39,49,000/- at the rate of 12%, amounting to Rs.4,73,880/-. The petitioner, in response to the same, filed detailed objections on 2.7.2005, inter alia, stating that the presumption raised by the respondents herein as if the petitioner had purchased the Elevators from Mumbai OTIS Company is not true and that they have not directly purchased any Elevators from Mumbai OTIS Company and on the other hand they have given works contract to M/s. OTIS Elevators (India) Limited, whose office is located at Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad. The petitioner had even enclosed the purchase order in support of their claim. It was further contended that they have issued works contract to M/s OTIS Elevators (India) Limited, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad and the contract is for a specified purpose of designing, supply, installation and commissioning of 42 (6+16+20) Passenger Elevators and as such they have not issued any supply order to Mumbai Company requiring them to supply the Elevators. It was also contended by the petitioner that the entry tax is applicable on any dealer, if they purchase the goods from outside the State and use them for own consumption. It is unnecessary to refer in detail the objections raised by the petitioner. The 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner (CT), vide the impugned order, having in detail referred to the contentions of the petitioner, disposed of the objections in the following manner: “The contentions put forth by them have been carefully examined and not considered, because of the reason that as per this office records, they have received the elevators from M/s. OTIS, Mumbai vide contract No.52 NL 4827/29 on an approved contract value of Rs.39,49,000-00”. In our considered opinion, the 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner ought to have taken the objections raised by the petitioner into consideration and passed a detail speaking order. The objections have been disposed of in one sentence, stating that the contentions have been carefully examined. The documentary evidence made available by the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration and the documents, upon which reliance is sought to be placed by the respondents, ought to have been supplied to the petitioner in order to enable them to make further representation/petition, if any, in the matter. We find it difficult to sustain the impugned order, which is a non-speaking order. The impugned order results in serious legal infirmity sofar as the petitioner is concerned and, therefore, the requirement, in law, is that the conclusion drawn by the authority is required to be supported by reasons. In such view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration by the respondents in accordance with law. It shall be open to the petitioner to make further representation, if any, for which purposes a further notice shall be issued by the respondents in accordance with law, before an appropriate decision is taken in the matter. It is needless to observe that we have not adverted ourselves to the question of constitutional validity of A.P. Tax on Entry of Goods in Local Areas Act, 2001 and the petitioner’s right to challenge the same as and when such an occasion arises is left open. ____________________ B. Sudershan Reddy, J. ____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Date: 23—08—2005. Note: C.C. in three days. (BO) MVB.