THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23095 of 2010 October 29, 2010 Between: M/s.Venkatabalaji Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Hyderabad, represented by its Director, Mr.Ramprasad … Petitioner AND The Commercial Tax Officer (Int.), Charminar Division, M.J.Market, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23095 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of TMT bars and MS ingots, is a Value Added Tax (VAT) dealer on the rolls of the third respondent. They filed the instant writ petition assailing the assessment order dated 20.8.2010 for the tax periods 2006-07 to 2010-11 (upto 18.6.2010) and the provisional attachment order dated 30.6.2010 under Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act). The petitioner filed monthly returns for the periods April 2005 to June 2010 reporting the turnover scored by them under the VAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, duly paying the tax for the period. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer inspected the business premises on 11.1.2010 and having determined the excess stock worth Rs.5,97,400/-, issued a show cause notice dated 23.3.2010 proposing to levy tax of Rs.23,296/-. The petitioner paid the tax and penalty without any demour. On 18.6.2010, the second respondent again inspected the business premises for conducting audit on the ground that two lorries carrying on iron and steel from petitioner’s factory without proper documents were stopped and they were released after collecting compounding fee of Rs.1,28,000/-. During the inspection, the account books were seized allegedly without conducting panchanama and a list of those books and documents was furnished to the petitioner on 05.8.2010. Reassessment was taken up, after issuing a show cause notice in VAT Form 305A, proposing to levy Rs.76,72,907/- as tax on the suppressed turnover. This lead to passing of the impugned assessment order in Form 305 dated 20.8.2010 followed by the impugned provisional attachment order. It is well settled that if an enactment conferring benefits or imposing burdens creates quasi judicial authorities and tribunals, for seeking redressal, any challenge to the adverse decision by such bodies must be made initially before such tribunals and quasi judicial authorities only. Even if a writ petition is filed, ordinarily, the High Court may not be inclined to exercise its discretionary and extraordinary writ jurisdiction. There is no dispute that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy against the order of the first respondent by way of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The Counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned assessment order as well as the consequential provisional attachment order under Section 27 of the VAT Act by the third respondent. He also points out that there is no proper delegation of power to third respondent to issue provisional attachment order. Per contra, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, at the stage of admission itself, has placed before this Court a copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide CCT’s Ref.No.BV(3)/93/2010, dated 30.6.2010, whereby and whereunder the Commissioner accorded permission for the provisional attachment of properties in respect of the petitioner, as per Section 27(2)(a) of the VAT Act, towards the realization of provisionally determined tax liability of Rs.76,72,907/-. Therefore the contention fails. Insofar as the non-furnishing of records and violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, our attention has been invited by the Special Counsel to the acknowledgement of the petitioner of having received 78 books and documents. With regard to merits of the case, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 31 of the VAT Act and, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to entertain the writ petition especially when serious allegations of suppression of the turnover are made against the petitioner. This order shall not preclude the petitioner to challenge the provisional attachment order under Section 27(2) of the VAT Act. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) October , 2010 YS