1 APHC010126632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6802/2025 Between: Anjaneya Agency ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX This Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had suffered an order of assessment bearing DIN 3705082495743, dated 05.08.2024, passed by the 3rd respondent, for the tax period 01.03.2022 to 31.08.2023. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said assessment order. 2 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, who is not the territorial Assessing Officer of the petitioner, had conducted audit and assessment proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of an authorization given to him for conduct of assessment only and the same is impermissible. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sri Balaji Flour Mills vs. The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor and Ors.,1 and M/s. Dekars Fires & Security Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division &Ors.,2contends that a single authorization for conduct of audit or a single authorization for conduct of assessment would not empower the said officer to take up the other proceeding of audit or assessment respectively. 5. The Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh considering this issue had held that an officer, who is not the territorial Assessing Officer of a dealer would require separate authorization for conduct of audit and assessment. In the absence of such authorization, the conduct of audit and assessment by such an officer would be invalid and requires to be set aside. 1 40 vst 150 2 2011 53 APSTJ 45 3 6. In the circumstances, the present Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of assessment, passed by the 3rd respondent vide DIN 3705082495743, dated 05.08.2024 and the matter is remanded back to the territorial Assessing Officer to pass orders, in accordance with law, after an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. 7. The period between the date of the impugned order and the date of receipt of this order by the territorial Assessing Officer shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO,J RJS 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6802 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 26.03.2025 RJS 5