M/S Lohiya Edible Oils Private Limited vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Heard Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Singamsetty V. M. Sankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner is involved in the business of importing crude edible oil and refining the same for sale. The premises of the petitioner were subjected to inspection, after which proceedings were initiated for assessment. The details of the years of assessment and the dates of orders of assessment are given herein below.

All these orders are sought to be challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that, the said orders suffered from violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

The Assessing Authority had initiated proceedings, on the ground that, the standard yield of refined oil from the crude oil would be 94.5%. However, the yield obtained by the petitioner, for the following years, is as follows:

The Assessing Officer took the view that, the claim of the petitioner beyond yield of 94.5%, cannot be accepted and the excess yield would have to be treated as taxable.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that, the petitioner, upon receiving the initial notice, regarding this aspect, had sought information from the Assessing Officer as to how the Assessing Officer, had arrived, at the bench mark of 94.5% and the same had not been answered by the Assessing Officer at any stage. The petitioner relies upon the letters sent by the petitioner, on 28.05.2025, 19.06.2025 & 23.08.2025 and the written objections filed, as part of the personal hearing held, on 13.10.2025, to contend that this issue was raised but was not answered by the Assessing Officer.

The impugned orders of assessment do not contain any reference to the letters, dated 28.05.2025 & 23.08.2025, in some of the assessment orders. However, the letter, dated 28.05.2025, has specifically been referred to in the subsequent representation, dated 19.06.2025. Similarly, additional submissions, as part of the personal hearing also referred to this request.

In these circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner had made a request for the said information and the source, on the basis of which such a bench mark is being fixed. The record does not disclose any reply by the Assessing Officer, to such an enquiry.

In such circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner did not get an appropriate opportunity of hearing as the material, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had initiated assessment was not given to the petitioner.

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the aforesaid orders of assessment, for the assessment years, mentioned in the above table and the assessments are remanded back to the Assessing Officer to set out the source of information and the details of the information, on the basis of which a standard yield of 94.5% was fixed. Thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to file it’s objections to the said benchmark as well as any other issue. The Assessing Officer shall pass orders after adequate opportunity is given to the petitioner.

2026