THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.29146 OF 2010 Dated:03.12.2010 Between: M/s.Annapoorna Fire Works Represented by its Managing Partner Lotturi Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged: about 52 years, Chinnapasummaru Village, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Door No.4-355, 2nd Lane, Pandariuram, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.29146 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the order of assessment passed by the respondent dated 13.09.2010 levying tax on the sale of Fire Works @ 12.5% for the period from April, 2008 to August, 2009, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in the purchase and sale of Fire Works. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the respondent. On 24.09.2009, the petitioner’s premises was inspected by the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Guntur and certain material, such as Income Tax Statement, Purchases and Sales bills, Account Copies etc., were collected and were transferred to the respondent’s office. Thereupon, the respondent issued notice calling upon the petitioner to produce the records for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The petitioner did not produce the records for the years 2008-2009, but produced the records for the years 2009- 2010. Thereafter, a notice in Form 305A dated 26.04.2010 was issued informing the petitioner about the variations in the Ledger Books and calling upon them to submit their objections. The petitioner submitted letter dated 03.05.2010 requesting the respondent to supply certain material documents including the physical verification of stock statement, which were later supplied to them. On 15.06.2010, the petitioner filed a letter seeking two months time to file objections, but the respondent restricted time upto 25.06.2010. The petitioner filed preliminary objections on 05.07.2010 wherein they sought further time of two months and for personal hearing “to discuss in detail”. The respondent, however, passed the assessment order dated 13.09.2010. In the said order, the respondent compared the monthly particulars of fire works purchased from outside the State and observed that certain purchases were not properly accounted for only with an intension to evade the legitimate tax due to the Government. The suppression of purchases of Fire Works outside the State was worked out by the respondent and tax was sought to be levied thereupon. A table giving purchase details, as also the purchases suppressed, forms part of the order of assessment for the year 2008-2009. The suppressed purchases are said to be for a sum of Rs.1,48,33,058/-. The respondent also notes that several particulars were given to the petitioner, and they had filed their preliminary objections which were carefully considered by him. He also refers to an endorsement given on 18.08.2010 granting time to the petitioner upto 05.09.2010 to file their objections and, since the stipulated time had already been expired and no objections were filed, he had passed the assessment order. Before this Court Sri M.V.J.K.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would question the order of assessment on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel would submit that, even though the petitioner had filed his preliminary objections as early as on 05.07.2010, the respondent had failed to take into consideration the objections raised therein while passing the order of assessment. He would also submit that, despite the petitioner seeking a personal hearing, no such opportunity was afforded to them. Learned counsel would rely on “Sangam Health Care Products Limited, Secnuderabad v. Commercial Tax Officer, S.D.Road Circle, Hyderabad[1] and Kamadhenu Feeds Private Limited, Narakoduru, Chebrol Mandal, Guntur District v. The Commercial Tax Oficer, Gandhichowk Circle, Tenali, Guntur District and others[2]” in this regard. On the other hand, Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that, while the order of assessment was served on the petitioner on 13.09.2010, and though the period of limitation including the period of 30 days which the authority is empowered to condone had expired by 12.11.2010, the present writ petition is filed on 22.11.2010 beyond the time limit prescribed for an appeal. Learned counsel would take this Court through the assessment order in support of his submission that, despite several opportunities being given to them, the petitioner had failed to avail the opportunity necessitating the respondent passing the order of assessment. As regards the contention of the petitioner that they were denied an opportunity of personal hearing, it is necessary to note that, in his letter dated 05.07.2010, the petitioner had requested the respondent to grant them two months time to file a detailed reply to the Form 305-A notice and, in this connection, a personal hearing was sought to “discuss in detail”. It defies reasons as to why a personal hearing should be afforded merely to enable the petitioner to approach the authorities and personally satisfy them for grant of an adjournment. Be that as it may, even thereafter the respondent had granted further time to the petitioner to submit their reply including by way of endorsement dated 18.08.2010 which opportunity was not availed by the petitioner to submit their detailed objections. We see no reason to set aside the order of assessment on the ground that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing. As regards, the contention that the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner through letter dated 05.07.2010 were not dealt with by the assessessing authority, the respondent has categorically stated in the order of assessment that he had considered the preliminary objections and had, thereafter, passed the order. It is not for this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to examine the order of assessment as the appellate authority would. Suffice to hold that the order of assessment is a reasoned order. While much can be said on the merits of the case, we refrain from doing so since the learned counsel for the petitioner had specifically stated that he is not addressing this Court on the merits of the case. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 03.12.2010 KH [1] (2005) 41 APSTJ 99 [2] (2007) 45 APSTJ 62