THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 15689, 15690 and 15691 of 2009 W.P.No. 15689 of 2009 Between: L & T Infocty Limited, a Company incorporated Under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 1Q4 A, Cyber Towers, Hitec-City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. …Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner (C.T), VMU-1, Hyderabad (Rural) Division, Hyderabad. …Respondent W.P.No. 15690 of 2009. Between: L & T Infocty Limited, a Company incorporated Under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 1Q4 A, Cyber Towers, Hitec-City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. …Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner (C.T), VMU-1, Hyderabad (Rural) Division, Hyderabad. …Respondent W.P.No. 15691 of 2009 Between: L & T Infocty Limited, a Company incorporated Under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 1Q4 A, Cyber Towers, Hitec-City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Represented by its Head (Finance & Accounts) and authorised signatory of the company …Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner (C.T), VMU-1, Hyderabad (Rural) Division, Hyderabad. …Respondent COMMON ORDER: (Per GR, J) Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Sri R.Raghunandan for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Koundinya, the learned Special standing counsel for the Commercial Taxes department. These three writ petitions are by the same petitioner in respect of different assessment periods. The facts in W.P.No. 15689 of 2009 are representative of the issues common to all the three writ petitions. What is in challenge is an order of assessment under the AP VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 30-4-2009 (W.P.No. 15689/2009); the notice dated 26-8-2008 (W.P.No. 15690/2009); and the notice dated 4-9-008 (W.P.No. 15691/2009), inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has been assessed to tax on the value of plant and machinery and electrical installations, which are embedded components of the land and building and therefore, not liable to tax. Sri Krishna Koundinya, the learned Special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes fairly states that neither the preceding show-cause notice dated 26-8-2008 nor the impugned order of assessment contain adequate particulars to justify the treatment by the Revenue that the plant and machinery and electrical installations are liable to tax under Section 4 (8) of the Act. Section 4 (8) of the Act enjoins levy of tax on transfer of right to use goods to any lessee or licensee for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, in the course of his business. In the circumstances alleged by the petitioner and in the light of the averment on behalf of the Revenue that the show-cause notices as well as the assessment order ought to have been more comprehensively structured so as to afford reasonable and fair opportunity to the assessee/petitioner either to respond at the show-cause notice stage or to pursue appropriate remedies at the assessment level, this Court considers it appropriate to quash the order of assessment dated 30-4-2009 and the show-cause notices for the different assessment periods including for the assessment period 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2007 and 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008, which is the subject matter of the three writ petitions. The Revenue shall now issue fresh show-cause notices to the petitioner for the assessment years in question and proceed therefrom. The petitioner may submit its response to the show-cause notices within the time stipulated therefor in the fresh show-cause notices to be issued. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. ___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th August, 2009. GRR