HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos. 15064, 15124 and 15142 of 2010 Date: 02-07-2010 Between M/s Miryalaguda Rice Industries-2 ………… Petitioner And Commercial Tax Officer and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos. 15064, 15124 and 15142 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Both Sri S. Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would request this Court to dispose of the writ petitions at the stage of admission. The question, which arises for consideration in these writ petitions, is common and as such they are being disposed of by a common order. It would suffice for the disposal of these writ petitions, if the facts stated in W.P.No.15064 of 2010 are noted. The petitioner is the partner of a rice mill engaged in business of milling of paddy and marketing of resultant rice. They also took on lease another unit in the premises of Miryalaguda Rice Industries. The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. While matters stood thus, the second and third respondents inspected the business premises of the petitioner as well as two other assessees on 19-08-2008 and seized certain stocks. The first respondent, on the basis of the report submitted by the second respondent dated 28-01-2009, issued show cause notice dated 16-02- 2009 proposing to reject the returns and levy tax of Rs.27,30,830/-. The petitioner filed their objections, which was acknowledged by the office of the first respondent on 04-06-2009. It is the petitioner’s grievance that, despite their having filed their objections, the first respondent had passed an order of assessment on 15-06-2010 rejecting the objections filed by them on the ground that the same material which was furnished to the Inspecting Authority had been reproduced and that the Inspecting Authority, after scrutiny of the material, had arrived at the variations proposed in the show cause notice dated 16-02-2009. Sri S. Suri Babu, Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the very basis for issuing the show cause notice, and passing of the very assessment order, is the vigilance report of the second respondent, and as the copy of the vigilance report was not furnished to the petitioner, the petitioners have been denied a reasonable opportunity of putting forth their objections on the vigilance report of the second respondent. Learned counsel would submit that, except in cases where the assessing authority passes an order independent of and without reference to the vigilance report, a copy of the said report ought to be furnished to the assessee, more so when the assessing authority chooses to rely on the said report. Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would fairly state that, while the petitioners may well have been aware of the contents of the vigilance report of the second respondent as an enquiry was held earlier under the Essential Commodities Act, the first respondent should, nonetheless, have furnish a copy of the said vigilance report before passing the assessment order. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the impugned order of assessment, and direct the first respondent to make available a copy of the vigilance report of the second respondent to the petitioners herein, give them an opportunity of submitting fresh objections thereto, and thereafter pass a fresh order of assessment in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 02-07-2010 YCR