THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.12813 and 12815 of 2012 June 08, 2012 Between: M/s.Kei-Ross Maritime Limited, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.Mahesh Prasad ... Petitioner And Commercial Tax Officer, Alcot Gardens, Rajahmundry And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.12813 and 12815 of 2012 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner in these two writ petitions is registered VAT dealer on the rolls of the first respondent. As authorised by the Deputy Commissioner, the first respondent conducted audit of the tax records of the petitioner on 22.2.2011. In pursuance thereof a notice in Form-VAT 305A was issued proposing to assess VAT for the period, July 2008 to February 2011. The petitioner submitted objections with regard to exigibility of the deemed sales i.e., transfer of right to use the goods under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Without having jurisdiction, the first respondent passed assessment order on 13.7.2011. The said order is assailed in W.P.No.12813 of 2012. As a consequence to the assessment order, the first respondent passed another order on 30.11.2011 imposing penalty of 25%. This is challenged in W.P. No.12815 of 2012. The counsel for the petitioner raised various submissions. It is also contended that the first respondent was never authorised to audit and any joint authorisation for the purpose of audit and assessment is unsustainable. He relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (VVSR,J) is member in Dekhars Fires & Security Systems Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division[1]. Therein we have held that there should be separate orders authorising competent officer to undertake audit and assessment. Mere authorisation for audit does not enable the officer to undertake assessment. Following the same, we pass the following order. The assessment order dated 13.7.2011 impugned in W.P.No.12813 of 2012 is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the first respondent. He shall submit audit report to the second respondent who shall consider the matter and if necessary issue separate authorisation for assessment. In view of this, the penalty order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petitions, as also the miscellaneous petitions, are accordingly disposed of. All other contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are left open to be decided by the appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) June 08, 2012 YS [1] (2011) 53 APSTJ 45