APHC010096332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 5452/2025 Between: Anuhya Agencies ...PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was assessed to tax, by the 1st respondent, for the tax period 01.03.2022 to 28.12.2023, under the APVAT Act, by way an assessment order, bearing DIN No.3730062357100, dated 04.07.2023. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that, the said order had not been served on the petitioner till 19.02.2024, when the certified copy of the order, at the 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5452 of 2025 request of the petitioner, was served on him. The petitioner further contends that the assessment order is without jurisdiction and is in violation of the law in as much as the 1st respondent, is not the appropriate Assessing Officer of the petitioner and had conducted the assessment proceedings on the basis of an authorisation issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Nellore, dated 16.03.2023 and another authorisation for assessment, dated 16.03.2023. It appears that though separate authorisations were given, they were issued on the same day. 3. The petitioner contends that the authorisation carried under such authorisations is clearly invalid and is in violation of the law laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Dekars Fires & Security Systems Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secundrabad Division & Ors1. In the said Judgment, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court, while considering the question of the power of the Officer to conduct audit, when he had been authorised for conduct of assessment, had held that, in such circumstacnes, the order of assessment passed on audit conducted by the Officer, who was incompetent to conduct such audit, would have to be set aside. However, the Division Bench took the view that such procedure shall be implemented by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to issue separate orders authorising for assessment and audit. 1 (2011) 40 VST 150 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5452 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a Judgment of another Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated 04.02.2013, in W.P.No.40638 of 2012, in the case of M/s. Arihant Automobiles vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Adoni-I. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner had issued two orders of authorisation. In the first order, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was authorised to conduct the audit. By way of the second order of authorisation, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was also authorized to proceed to an assessment if satisfied, when there were under declaration of the turn over. 5. The Division Bench took the view that authorization could have been given by the Deputy Commissioner only after being satisfied that there was a need for a separate assessment by the Officer other than the appropriate Assessing Officer, after satisfying himself that the audit had revealed shortcomings. The Division Bench, on this basis, took the view that the order of authorization for conduct of assessment could not have been left to the discretion of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. 6. In the present case, two separate orders of authorization for conduct of audit and for conduct of assessment proceedings were issued separately without any conditionality as set out in the case before the Division Bench in the order in W.P.No.40638 of 2012. 7. However, we are of the opinion that this principle would enure to the benefit of the petitioner even in cases where no such condition is attached. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5452 of 2025 8. The procedure, as can be seen from the Judgment mentioned above, is that the Deputy Commissioner can issue an authorization to an Officer who is the territorial Officer authorised for conduct of audit. In the event of any shortcomings in the audit, it would be open to the Territorial Deputy Commissioner to issue yet another order of authorisation whereby, the Officer conducting the audit can also take up the assessment proceedings. It appears that both orders could not be given simultaneously and would have to be consequent to the order of authorisation to that of the award of the outcome of the audit. 9. In such circumstances, it would be open to set aside the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent and remand the matter back to the 2nd respondent, who is the Territorial Assessing Officer of the petitioner, to pass orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Date: 12.03.2025 MJA 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5452 of 2025 85 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.5452 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 12.03.2025 MJA