IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 8615 OF 2009 Between: M/s Badruka Exim Pvt Limited ..... petitioner AND Additional Commissioner (CT) Enforcement, O/o Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad and two others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (per Sri Justice RAMESH RANGANATHAN) The petitioner seeks a declaration that the assessment order dated 18.3.2009 is illegal on the ground that the second respondent had passed the order, relying wholly on the report of the first respondent, and had levied higher rate of sales tax at 12.5% on BFS insulation fibre. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that BFS insulation fibre, falls under Entry 26 of the IV Schedule to the AP VAT Act, and is liable to tax only at 4%. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company carrying on business of trading in the first sale of BFS insulation fibre, is a dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. Its business premises was audited by the first respondent who observed that the commodity, in which the petitioner Company was dealing in, was liable to tax at 12.5% and not 4%. The differential tax of 8.5% was collected from the petitioner. The second respondent issued notice dated 11.12.2008 proposing to levy a higher rate of tax at 12.5% on BSF Insulation fibre treating it as falling outside Entry 26 of the IV Schedule to the Act. The second respondent issued show cause notice proposing to levy penalty and interest. The petitioner filed their reply thereto on 7.2.2009 receipt of which was acknowledged by the office of the second respondent on 11.2.2009. It is the petitioner’s case that the second respondent, without considering their reply, had confirmed the higher rate of tax at 12.5 %. The second respondent levied 100% penalty and interest at 1%. The petitioner would contend that a common order levying tax, penalty and interest cannot be passed; the second respondent had merely acted on the instructions of the first respondent and not independently; the objections raised by the petitioner in their reply to the show cause notice was not considered; and the assessing authority has not assigned any reasons. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the order of assessment dated 18.3.2009 is bereft of reasons. It is also evident that the objections filed by the petitioner have not been considered. Learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes would fairly concede that the said order is un-sustainable as no reasons have been assigned, the objections filed by the petitioner herein were not considered and they were not afforded a personal hearing despite their request. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is open to the second respondent to pass orders afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _________________​______ RAMESH RANGANATHAN , J DATE: 27.11.2009. KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies