THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.33758, 33769, 33770, 33774, 33775, 33776, 33784, 33786, 33787, 33788 and 33790 OF 2011 DATED:22.12.2011 Between: M/s. Sri Uma Maheshwara Rice and Flour Mill Vetapalem East Godavari District Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Kaathipudi Subba Rao … Petitioner And Commercial Tax officer Peddapuram and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.33758, 33769, 33770, 33774, 33775, 33776, 33784, 33786, 33787, 33788 and 33790 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same and the facts are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that neither the assessing authority nor the appellate authority nor the revising authority under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act supplied a copy of the report furnished by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Rajahmundry, on the basis of which a finding has been given against the petitioners. 3. In respect of W.P. No.33758 of 2011 our attention has been drawn to the following passage occurring in the assessment order: “Further on verification of certain incriminating material received from Vigilance & Enforcement Authorities of Rajahmundry unit, it is noticed that the dealers have reported the paddy purchases during the year 2003-04 to the DSO1, Kakinada to a tune Q.26,253.30 whereas in the audit report filed the dealers reported the purchases of Paddy as Q.21,725.55 and hence the suppressed paddy purchases of Q.4,257 is proposed to be added to the paddy purchases so reported and the value is arrived at Rs.25,50,001.00 by adopting the average rate of Rs.563.19.” 4. Similarly, in the revisional order, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner was that the Commercial Tax Officer has passed the assessment order blindly following the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Officer without conducting an enquiry. It is also noted that in the grounds of appeal and during the course of personal hearing it was contended that the assessing authority did not apply its mind but simply acted upon the information furnished by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Rajahmundy. 5. The facts of the case show that the assessing officer took a decision against the assessees but in appeal the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam, allowed the appeals and held that a best judgment assessment requires the assessing authority to conduct an enquiry rather than relying only on the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. 6. The appellate orders were sought to be revised by the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) but as noted above the said authority did not deal with the contention of the petitioners that the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department was not supplied to the petitioners and yet it was used against them. 7. Learned Special Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department says that the petitioners will be supplied with the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department within one week and the matter will be considered afresh by the assessing authority. 8. In view of this submission and statement by learned Special Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department, we set aside the orders passed against the petitioners and remand the matter back to the assessing authority to take a decision after supplying a copy of the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department to the petitioners. 9. The writ petitions are disposed of. Interim applications are also disposed of. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22-12-2011 bnr