THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.10088 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. At their request, the Writ Petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. Aggrieved by the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Krishna Lanka Circle, Vijayawada, dated 08.03.2010; the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the A.P. Vat Act, 2005, and the Central Sales Tax Act. They purchased two “Loader Backhoe”, Vibratory Compactors and Soil Compactors from M/s. Larson and Turbo Case Equipment (P) Limited, Mumbai, against C-Forms for their use. The first respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to produce the books of accounts, which eventually culminated in an order of assessment being passed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27574 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 18.12.2009, set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the first respondent. While matters stood so, the first respondent issued another show cause notice dated 15.02.2010 calling upon the petitioner to pay entry tax at 12.5% on the purchase value of Rs.76,16,999/- on the earth moving equipments treating it as a Motor Vehicle falling under Section 2 (25) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 {“the Act” for brevity}. It is the petitioner’s case that he could not file his objections immediately and, on expiry of fifteen {15} days, the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 was passed confirming the proposal to levy tax by virtue of Section 3 of Ordinance 22 of 1996. It is the petitioner’s case that the assessing authority has not even recorded a finding that the equipment in question falls within the definition of ‘Motor Vehicle’ under the Act conferring jurisdiction upon him to levy tax thereupon. A perusal of the assessment order supports the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is only if the equipment in question falls within the definition of ‘Motor Vehicle’, can such equipment be held liable to tax under the Act. The assessing authority has not recorded any finding in this regard. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the assessee-first respondent who, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, shall pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 23rd June 2010 RRB