THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.18594 OF 2009 Dt.07.10.2009 Between: M/s. Voltas Limited 87/D, R.P. Road, Secunderabad-500003 Represented by its Accounts Executive Mr. Ch. Lakshman Kumar … Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Dwarakanath Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Commercial Taxes THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.18594 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Rule. Service of notice is waived by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. In this petition, the order dt.18.8.2009 passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Secunderabad, has been challenged. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the impugned order is not a reasoned order because respondent No.1 has not given reasons for coming to the conclusion. Though certain agreements/contracts had been placed on record, they had not been thoroughly examined and without examining the said agreements/contracts, only on the basis of a report submitted by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 had come to the conclusion and passed the assessment order, whereby an amount of Rs.2,40,33,775/- has been assessed as tax. It has been further submitted that if proper appreciation is made on the agreements/contracts placed on record before respondent No.1, possibly, the aforestated amount would not have been assessed as tax. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perused the impugned assessment order passed by respondent No.1. We find substance in what has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, because we do not find any discussion in the impugned order on the agreements/contracts entered into by the petitioner with its customers. In our opinion, respondent No.1 ought to have examined the agreements/contracts for coming to a particular conclusion. But, prima faci e, it appears that without going into the contents of the agreements/contracts, mainly on the basis of a report submitted by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has arrived at certain conclusions and has assessed the tax. For the aforestated reason, we are of the view that respondent No.1 ought to have examined the agreements/contracts entered into by the petitioner with its customers and only after examining the same and upon hearing the representative of the petitioner, an order should have been passed recording the reasons for coming to a particular conclusion. For the aforestated reason, the assessment order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 shall consider the agreements/contracts entered into by the petitioner with its customers and after hearing the petitioner’s representative, a fresh assessment order shall be passed. We are sure that respondent No.1 shall record the reasons for coming to a conclusion, on which he might assess the tax payable by the petitioner. It has been agreed by the learned Advocates that respondent No.1 shall hear the petitioner’s representative on 21.10.2009 at 10.30 a.m., and the learned Advocate for the petitioner has assured this Court that the representative of the petitioner shall not pray for time on that day and shall proceed further with the hearing. We are sure that respondent No.1 shall consider the submissions, which might be made, and the objections, which might be raised on behalf of the petitioner. Normally we would not have entertained this petition, because the impugned order is an appealable order. However, looking to the fact that no reason has been given by the assessing authority – respondent No.1, in the impugned order, we are constrained to entertain this petition and pass the order. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07.10.2009 bnr