IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7783 of 2009 Between: Indag Rubber Limited, having registered Office at No.11, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi, having its branch Office at H.No.96/1A, Plot No.5, Auto Nagar, Hyderabad, represented by its Zonal Manager Y.Veeranjaneyulu S/o. Late Venkataratnam R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Vanastalipuram Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Marredpally Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. 3 State Bank of Bicanaire & Jaipur, Saket Branch, New Delhi, represented by its Branch Manager. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned urgent arrear notice dt. 24.2.2009 issued pursuant to the Procedings G.I. No. 3043/2004-05 (CST) dt. 31.3.2008 by the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, due to non-application of mind, without relevant material on record, perverse, intentional harassment, double taxation and violative of the provisions of the CST Tax and in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7783 of 2009 ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) Petitioner is a dealer both under the CST and APGST Acts. For the assessment year 2004-2005, the second respondent passed an order of assessment on 29.03.2008 and, after giving the benefit of exemption to the extent of the statutory G and C forms produced, CST of Rs.3,92,655/- was held as liable to be paid by the petitioner herein. The petitioner claims to have paid the balance tax of Rs.34,969/-. The first respondent also passed an assessment order, for the very same assessment year 2004-2005, on 31.03.2008 whereby Rs.7,54,276/- was held as the CST due from the petitioner herein. The petitioner would contend that, since they had already been assessed to tax by the second respondent on 29.03.2008 and they had paid the tax so determined, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to levy tax again on the petitioner for the very same assessment year. Counter-affidavits have been filed both on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The fact that the petitioner had submitted the statutory declarations, in C and G forms, to the second respondent, is admitted. It is, however, contended that since Saroornagar was divided into two Divisions i.e., Saroornagar and Vanastalipuram, the area in which the petitioner was carrying on business fell within the jurisdiction of the first respondent from 01.04.2007 onwards and, as such, it was the first respondent who had the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. It is also admitted in the counter-affidavit that there was a delay in transfer of the file from the second respondent to the first respondent. The delay in intra- departmental communication between the second and first respondents cannot result in the petitioner being assessed twice for the very same assessment year by two different commercial tax officers. It is evident from the counter affidavits that the petitioner had filed statutory declarations, in C & G forms, before the second respondent whereby they were entitled to claim benefit of exemption of tax and the higher tax levied by the first respondent was on account of such forms not having been produced before him. Ends of justice would be met, if the assessment orders passed both by respondents 1 and 2, and the consequential orders, if any passed pursuant thereto are set aside and the first respondent is directed to pass afresh an assessment order for the assessment year 2004-2005, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The second respondent shall forward the entire file, which is also said to contain the C&G forms filed by the petitioner, to the first respondent forthwith. On receipt of the records from the second respondent, the first respondent shall put the petitioner on notice, give them an opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a fresh order of assessment in accordance with law. Needless to state that the tax already paid by the petitioner, for the CST assessment year 2004-2005, to the second respondent shall be given credit to by the first respondent while determining the balance tax, if any, liable to be paid by the petitioner. Both the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Date:25-8-2009 __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J ASP/MRKR