THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 28142 of 2008 Dated: 10-11-2009 Between: M/s Avon Sales Corporation, rep. by Sri Surender Jain, Proprietor. …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence, Charminar Division, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Oral Order: (Per GR, J) Though the writ petition is filed challenging the orders of the 1st respondent dated 15-10-2008 and 16-10-2008, being orders of assessment under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) and the order of penalty under Section 53 of the said Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would restrict the relief sought in the writ petition to the order of assessment dated 15-10-2008 with liberty to file a separate writ petition in respect of the order of penalty dated 16-10-2008. This request is made as both orders have been challenged in a single Writ Petition. Liberty is granted as sought and the writ petition is pursued in respect of the order of assessment dated 15-10-2008. The petitioner is a Proprietary firm in the business of sale of Tyres purchased locally and from out of the State. It is a registered dealer with the 1st respondent. For the period 1-4-2005 to 31-7-2008, the petitioner filed its returns and during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, the revenue officials visited the business premises of the petitioner on 29- 7-2008 and apparently found discrepancies in the books of account and stock registers and suppression of turnovers. A show-cause notice dated 15-9-2008 was issued, which asserts that the dealer had not furnished the books of account even after issue of summons in VAT Form 555; the purchase bills and purchase extracts available and loose slips filed at the time of audit were verified with the ledger extracts of the dealer and revealed certain irregularities in the turnover reported in the returns; that the dealer failed to account for the two outside purchase bills as also the local bills; that the dealer effected certain sales on loose slips which are not accounted for in the books of account; and that the tax proposed on the above items worked out on a separate sheet amounting to Rs.5,47,914-00 and further that as the dealer wilfully evaded the above tax amount, it committed an offence under Section 53 (3) of the Act and is therefore liable for penal action, for which a separate notice of penalty would be issued. The show-cause notice which is broadly in the above terms does not set out which are the two outside purchase bills that the petitioner failed to account for and which are the local bills not accounted for. The show- cause notice dated 15-9-2008 is vitiated for failing to confirm to minimal requirements of specificity in setting out allegations of suppression of turnover or other violations of the provisions of the Act. The 1st respondent proceeded to pass the order of assessment dated 15-10-2008 determining the total tax due at Rs.5,47,914-00. This is the order impugned herein. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Anji Reddy and Sri Krishna Koundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, this Court is of the considered view that the notice dated 15-9-2008 is woefully bereft of particulars and violates the minimal requirement of fair opportunity to the petitioner, namely, by setting out the particulars regarding the allegation of suppression of turnover or other allegations of violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005. As the show- cause notice is thus unsustainable so is the consequent order of assessment dated 15-10-2008. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed. The order of assessment dated 15-10-2008 passed by the1st respondent, assessing the petitioner under the AP VAT Act, 2005 for the tax period 2008-09 at Rs. 5,47,914-00 is set aside. The 1st respondent is however, at liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law and proceed with the assessment thereafter in accordance with law. The petitioner is granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedy against the order of penalty dated 16- 10-2009 passed by the 1st respondent. The writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 10th November, 2009. GRR