THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18112 OF 2010 Dated:29.10.2010 Between: M/s.Jaganmatha Electricals Private Limited, A Company registered under the Companies Act, Having its office at 106, Bhanu Enclave, Beside ESI, Erragadda, Hyderabad, rep., by its Executive Chairman and Authorized Signatory Mr.V.Kondapa Naidu .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Panjagutta Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, 6th Floor, Abids, Hyderabad And others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18112 OF 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, a manufacturer of Transformers and electrical goods, is a Value Added Tax (VAT) dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), Vengalraonagar Circle. Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.03.2010, covering the period from August, 2005 to October, 2009 levying Rs.1,91,92,307/-, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioner, during preliminary submissions, raised three grounds, namely, (i) the impugned order was not preceded by a statutory notice in Form VAT 305 A; (ii) the assessment for the period from April, 2006 to March, 2007 and April, 2007 to July, 2007, having already been completed by the second respondent, the impugned order is without jurisdiction; and (iii) the assessment of VAT for the period from April, 2005 till February, 2006 is barred by limitation under Section 21(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, the AP VAT Act). When the matter was heard on 17.08.2010, prima facie, we were convinced, and the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (CT) was called upon to file counter and produce relevant file. A counter affidavit is filed. It is admitted that, by order dated 12.10.2007, the assessment for the period from 2006-2007 to 2007- 2008 (upto July 2007) has already been completed. It is, however, alleged that the impugned order was preceded by a notice dated 02.02.2010 as well as the notice of the audit dated 12.01.2010; that neither the petitioner nor the respondents produced the account books for audit; and that the assessment order was passed based on the available record. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner, who reiterated the submissions as stated supra, and the Special Standing Counsel for CT, who reiterated the contentions in the counter affidavit. We have perused the file. The submission of the Revenue that the impugned order was preceded by a notice is not without substance. It is, however, submitted by the petitioner that the person who received the notice was no more in the employment of the petitioner-company. This, however, need not detain us. As the petitioner’s assessment for the period 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (upto July, 2007) has already been completed, and in respect of the balance period, it would be better that a fresh assessment is done by the jurisdictional CTO. The petitioner may treat the impugned order as a show cause notice, and submit objections preferably within a period of two weeks from today. A copy of the show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 is also handed over to the counsel for the petitioner which may also be treated as a notice. As and when objections are filed, the second respondent shall afford a reasonable opportunity and pass the assessment order. We leave open the question, whether any assessment for any period is barred by limitation, to be decided by the assessment officer at the first instance. The Writ Petition, with the above observations and directions, is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29.10.2010 Note:- Dispatch C.C. by 30.10.2010 (B/o) KH