1 APHC010266272020 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 NOs: 17573/2020 & 17896 of 2020 Between: M/s.G.R. Constructions, ...PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. Y N VIVEKANANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17896/2020 Between: M/s.G.R. Constructions, ...PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following common order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had suffered an order of Assessment, dated 19.09.2018, and a consequential order of penalty, dated 30.03.2019, passed by the 1st respondent- Commercial Tax Officer, Puthoor Circle, Chittoor Division, for the assessment period 2014-2015 to 2016-2017. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders, had approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petitions. 3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had been given authorization for conduct of audit only, whereas the 1st respondent, after conducting the audit had also carried out the assessment proceedings and passed the impugned order of assessment as well as the impugned order of penalty. 4. The learned counsel would contend that such a course of action is not available to the 1st respondent as held by this Court in M/s. Sri Balaji Flour Mills Vs. Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor and Ors., 1 Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and Ors.,2 and M/s. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Stone Vs. Commercial Tax Officer3. 1 40 vst 150 2 (2011) 6 SCC 508 3 53 APSTJ 45 3 5. The judgments cited above hold that separate authorizations are necessary for conduct of audit and assessment, failing which the proceedings would have to be set aside. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent was authorized to conduct audit only and there was no authorization to conduct assessment. 6. In that view of the matter, both the order of assessment and the order of penalty are set aside remanding the matter back to the territorial Assessing Officer to complete assessment proceedings and further proceedings, if any, after adequate opportunity of notice and hearing is given to the petitioner. 7. Needless to say, the period between the date of the impugned orders and the date of receipt of this order by the territorial Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. 8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, 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 SRI DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs: 17573/2020 & 17896 of 2020 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 26.03.2025 RJS