THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4974 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of assessment passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.12.2010 is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner, a company carrying on business in the sale of automobile parts at Kukatpally, is a registered dealer on the file of the 1st respondent. For the assessment year 2005-2006, the petitioner filed returns under the A.P. VAT Act declaring a taxable turnover in automobile parts of Rs.7.44 crores and paid tax thereupon. The 2nd respondent conducted a VAT Audit on 08.08.2006 in the business premises of the petitioner. Thereafter a notice in Form 305 A was issued on 23.09.2006. The petitioner submitted their explanation thereto. However the respondent passed an order of assessment dated 25.07.2002 raising a demand of Rs.423.50 lakhs. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed W.P. No.21276 of 2007. This Court, by order dated 19.02.2008, set aside the order of assessment on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.25.00 lakhs before 31.03.2008. The 2nd respondent issued another notice on 24.01.2009 reiterating the very same allegations and proposing to levy Rs.423.50 lakhs as tax. The petitioner filed their objections thereto. However the 2nd respondent passed an order of assessment dated 20.12.2010 raising a demand of Rs.423.50 lakhs. The said order is under challenge, among others, on the ground that it is without jurisdiction, and the first respondent was merely authorized to carry out audit and not to assess the petitioner to tax under the provisions of the VAT Act. Sri P. Balaji Verma, Learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would fairly state that the first respondent was merely authorized to conduct an audit, and not to assess the petitioner to tax. The Division bench of this Court, in M/s. Sri Balaji Flour Mills v. The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, Chittor District[1] held that, in the absence of an authorisation to assess a dealer to tax, an audit officer was only entitled to carry out audit, and the assessment order passed by him without necessary authorization was beyond his jurisdiction. Following the said judgment, this Writ Petition is also allowed in terms thereof. The impugned order of assessment is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the respective audit officers who shall submit audit reports as contemplated under Chapter VII of the VAT Audit Manual for appropriate Post Audit Action. If the competent controlling and/or supervising authority, like the Deputy Commissioner, issues separate orders authorizing assessment, it shall be open to such authorized officer or authority prescribed, as the case may be, to undertake assessment in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17 .03.2011 MRKR [1] Judgment in W.P. Nos.855 of 2008 & batch, dated 31.12.2010