M/S.Kamal Footwear, Krishna District. Vs the Asst.Commissioner (Ct) Int., Krishna District.

M/S.KAMAL FOOTWEAR, KRISHNA DISTRICT., VIJAYAWADA-520 007, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR CHANDRA PRAKASH SACHDEVA, S/O TOTARAM SACHADEVA

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE ASST COMMISSIONER CT INT KRISHNA DISTRICT, Commissioner (CT), No.II Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of assessment dated 22-02-2006 in Form VAT 305 issued by the respondent demanding the tax mentioned therein calculated on estimate basis in the absence of any categorical finding as to variation in physical quantity of stock available on the ground as on the date of inspection and also levying and demanding penalty in an amount equivalent to the amount of the estimated tax without even alleging any fraud or willful neglect/ contumacious behavior or mens-rea on the part of the petitioner claiming both these amounts in an single document or a composite instrument as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, opposed to the principals of natural justice, un-constitutional as also ultra vires the provision of the APVAT Act, 2005 and without jurisdiction and without

¶16

2

¶17

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5898 of 2006

¶18

authority of law and consequently set aside the notices/assessment in format 305 A and 305 levying tax and penalty and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 7537 OF 2006

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to assessment of Value Added Tax dated 22-02-2006 in Form VAT 300 demanding tax, penalty, issued by the respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.GUDURI VENKATESWARA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶24

1.DANTU SRINIVAS( SPL SC FOR CT)

¶25

2.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶26

3

¶27

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5898 of 2006

¶28

The Court made the following Order:

¶29

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of assessment, dated 22.02.2006, in Form VAT 305, issued by the respondent, in relation to the assessment period from 01.04.2005 to 31.12.2005. Various grounds had been raised in support of the said challenge by the petitioner, in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition.

¶30

When the matter was taken up on 17.09.2025, Sri Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner, had raised an additional ground. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Writ Petition would have to be allowed on the short ground that the audit and assessment carried out by the respondent was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the respondent was not the Assessing Officer of the petitioner and could not have passed an order of assessment without proper authorization.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax sought time to obtain instructions in this regard as the said contention had not been raised earlier.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader, after obtaining instructions, submits that separate authorization for passing assessment orders was not given to the respondent.

¶33

4

¶34

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5898 of 2006

¶35

This Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Sri Balaji Flour Mills vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Others¹ , had held that an order of assessment passed by an Officer other than the Assessing Authority, requires a separate authorization to be given to such officer.

¶36

As no such authorization appears to have been given to the respondent, this Writ Petition is allowed, following the Judgment of this Court in Sri Balaji Flour Mills (supra) and the impugned order of assessment, dated 22.02.2006, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer, after due notice of opportunity being given to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

________________________

¶40

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶41

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶42

Date: 19.01.2026 MJA