THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16894 of 2009 Dated:15.11.2010 Between: Sree Lakshmi Pictures. …Petitioner and Deputy Commissioner (CT) No.II Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16894 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is in the business of buying cinematographic films from the Producers of the films. It then transfers the right to telecast those films to various television channels. During the period from 2006 to 2008 the petitioner transferred the right to telecast the films to Gemini Television, Chennai. The turnover was assessed and a tax demand of Rs.51,823/- was raised. While doing so, the Commercial Tax Officer allowed a deduction of Rs.1,50,54,435/-, being the amount allegedly paid by the petitioner to Producers of the films in which the right to telecast was transferred to M/s.Gemini Television. The first respondent initiated revisional jurisdiction under Section 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act), and issued a Revision Show Cause Notice (RSCN), dated 15.07.2009, proposing to revise the assessment of the second respondent and to levy the tax at 12.5% on the entire turnover of Rs.1,63,50,000/-. After receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation on 03.08.2009. Even while the same is under consideration, the petitioner assails the same. In addition, the petitioner also challenges Rule 16(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the Rules), which disentitles an assessee from claiming input tax credit unless the tax invoice is produced. The Counsel for the petitioner relies on Sections 4(1), 4(2), 4(8) as well as Sections 13(1) and 13(3) of the Act and submits that Rule 16(1)(b) of the Rules is ultra vires these provisions. This is refuted by the Special Counsel for Commercial Tax. What is, in effect, under challenge is the RSCN issued by the first respondent. To our mind the main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that it is an unregistered Value Added Tax dealer and it would not fall under Section 4(8) of the Act and, therefore, the first respondent cannot assess under the said provisions, and at the same time deny the input tax credit. This can be a defence before the authority, who issued the show cause notice. It is, subject to certain exceptions, axiomatic that ordinarily a show cause notice is not amenable to judicial review. Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion and leave all questions open to be agitated by the petitioner before the first respondent to whom an explanation has already been submitted. We deem it proper not to go into the question of vires of Rule 16(1)(b) of the Rules and leave it open to be decided in an appropriate case. We also observe that the first respondent may dispose of the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing and to raise additional grounds, if any, and without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. The Writ Petition with the above observations stands dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 15.11.2010 vs