JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the Assessment Order AO No.51883 dt.31.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2015-16 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which has been served on the petitioner on 29.05.2020. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of sale of mobile phones and accessories and is a registered dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. For the assessment year 2015-16, the 1st respondent had issued a show-cause notice dt.04.06.2019 to the petitioner proposing to levy sales tax at 14.5% under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the sale of mobile phones of inter-State sales not covered by C-Forms, treating the mobile phones as unclassified goods as against 5% of the tax collected and paid by the petitioner to the respondents in terms of sub-item 15 of Item 39 of IV Schedule of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 4. The petitioner filed objections dt.28.11.2019 specifically contending that the turnover of Rs.49,58,26,358/- represents inter-State sales of mobile phones at the local VAT rate of tax of 5%. 5. In support of its objections, the petitioner enclosed CST invoices, copies of local sale invoices for ready reference and requested the 1st respondent to levy tax at 5%. 6. But the 1st respondent passed the impugned Assessment Order on 31.03.2020 without considering the specific contention raised by the petitioner about the rate of tax i.e. whether it should be 5% as contended by the petitioner or 14.5% as is being contended by the respondents. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that non-consideration of this issue by the 1st respondent, though it was specifically raised by the petitioner, vitiates the impugned order. According to him, the petitioner did not collect tax at 14.5% on sale of mobile phones in the light of Entry 39(15) of Schedule IV and certain Circular instructions given by the Commercial Taxes. Reliance is placed by Memo No.10427/CT-II(1) 2013-14 dt.17.05.2014 clarifying that mobile phones are taxable only at 5% under Entry 39(15) of Schedule IV. According to him, the petitioner did not collect tax at 14.5% on sale of mobile phones in the light of Entry 39(15) of Schedule IV and certain Circular instructions given by the Commercial Taxes. Reliance is placed by Memo No.10427/CT-II(1) 2013-14 dt.17.05.2014 clarifying that mobile phones are taxable only at 5% under Entry 39(15) of Schedule IV. He contended that if the petitioner had collected more tax, the petitioner would have been guilty of contravening the provisions of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 and would be liable for forfeiture under Section 57 of the said Act in addition to prosecution. 8. In addition to the above contentions, counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assessment Order passed by the 1st respondent is also barred by limitation for the tax period July, 2015 to January, 2016 as per Sub-rule 5A of Rule 14A of the CST (Telangana) Rules which states that 'every dealer should be deemed to have been assessed to tax, based on the returns filed by him, if no assessment is made within a period of four years from the date of filing of the return'. 9. Sri J.Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents could not explain how the 1st respondent omitted to deal with the contention about the appropriate rate of tax to be collected under CST Act, 1956 for mobile phones being sold by the petitioner in inter-State sales not covered by C-Forms though it was specifically raised in the objections dt.28.11.2019 filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dt.04.06.2019. 10. He fairly stated that it is desirable that the matter be remitted back to the 1st respondent to consider this point since he had omitted to consider the same while passing the impugned Assessment Order. 11. Counsel for the petitioner also requested that the matter be remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and that the petitioner be permitted to raise not only the issue about the rate of tax but also the issue of time bar of assessment for the period July, 2015 to January, 2016. 12. In view of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order AO No.51883 dt.31.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. 12. In view of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order AO No.51883 dt.31.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is given liberty to file additional objections raising also the plea of bar of limitation of assessment for the tax period July, 2015 to January, 2016 and also to raise any other plea which it deems fit, provided such additional objections are filed within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st respondent shall then consider the objections dt.28.11.2019 already filed by the petitioner as well as the additional objections which the petitioner is now given liberty to file, and then proceed to pass Assessment Order in accordance with law within eight (8) weeks. 13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.