THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5432 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice RAMESH RANGANATHAN) The petitioner, a VAT dealer – assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent, was subjected to audit by the 2nd respondent on 11.8.2008. Thereafter, an assessment order was passed on 18.10.2008. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal, and a stay application, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner claims to have contended that the service tax which is in dispute was not with reference to the supply of food and beverages but on hiring of banquet halls to the customers. The petitioner also claimed that no tax could be levied under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (A.P. VAT Act) on the service tax component. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 29.11.2008, rejected the stay petition. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal who, by the order impugned in this writ petition dated 16.1.2009, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. It is indeed unfortunate that a statutory right of revision conferred on the assessee under Section 33(6)(a) of the A.P. VAT Act has been dealt with in such a casual manner by the Additional Commissioner concerned. The impugned order is completely bereft of reasons. We are constrained to observe that the least that is expected of an authority exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 33(6)(a) is to record the contentions urged on behalf of the assessee, give his findings, however brief, thereupon at least prima facie since what is under challenge is an order rejecting stay, and pass a considered order either rejecting or granting stay, if need be, on such terms and conditions which he is entitled to impose. Failure on the part of quasi-judicial authorities to assign reasons for rejection of stay would render exercise of judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India difficult. Since the impugned order is bereft of reasons, we consider it appropriate to set aside the said order. The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal shall, within three weeks from today, pass a reasoned order afresh on the revision application filed by the petitioner, after giving them an opportunity of being heard. We make it clear that pending fresh orders being passed by the Additional Commissioner, on the revision application, the interim order passed by this Court on 18.3.2009 shall continue to remain in force. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 07.06.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days B/o ASP