JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment Order No.65175 dt.01.10.2020 passed by the 1st respondent under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 for the period March, 2015 to June, 2017. 2. The petitioner herein is a dealer engaged in Food, House-keeping services, Transportation services, Security services to schools owned and run by Manthan Educational Society. The petitioner is also registered with the Commercial Tax Department Office, Madhapur, Circle - IV since March, 2015. 3. The petitioner contends that it had paid VAT on Mess charges received towards supply of food to students and staff in the school premises of the said society in terms of the Act and also paid service tax on rent received towards Infra Lease rented by it in terms of the Finance Act, 1994. It also contends that it had filed VAT and Service Tax returns as required under the above statutes till the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. The 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice on 11.03.2020 to the petitioner proposing to levy VAT of Rs.1,73,62,178/- for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 (i.e., up to June, 2017) on four items, viz., (i) Transportation services; (ii) House-Keeping services; (iii) Infra Lease services; and (iv) Mess charges. 5. The petitioner filed a reply to the said show-cause notice on 18.03.2020 and also filed submissions on 21.03.2020 disputing the proposed levy of VAT by the 1st respondent. 6. Petitioner contended that VAT is not liable to be paid on transportation charges and house-keeping charges; that petitioner is not liable to pay VAT on lease rental amounts received by it; and it had already paid Service Tax at the rate of 15% on the lease rental consideration received by it. 7. It is contended by petitioner that VAT and Service Tax are mutually exclusive and VAT cannot be demanded when Service Tax is paid on the same item. 8. It was further contended that under Section 4(8) of the TS VAT Act, 2005, VAT is payable on Mess charges at the rate of 5% of the value when taxable turnover is less than 1.5 crores; that it had paid VAT on Mess charges at the rate of 5% since its total turnover on taxable sales is less than Rs.1.5 crores; and the demand of VAT at the rate of 14.5% is not valid in law. 9. 9. According to petitioner, only consideration received towards Mess charges which pertain to the sale of goods falls within the purview of taxable turnover under the TSVAT Act and the remaining turnover mentioned in Profit & Loss Account of the petitioner pertains to provision of services. 10. The 1st respondent then passed the impugned Assessment Order on 01.10.2020 dropping demand of VAT on House-keeping and Transportation charges, but rejected plea of the petitioner with regard to such levy on the consideration received towards Infra Lease and Mess charges at the rate of 14.5% by simply observing that 'explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory'. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, insofar as the 1st respondent levied VAT on Infra Lease and Mess charges, the present Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the 1st respondent should have passed a speaking order assigning reasons for confirmation of the levy on these two items; that the 1st respondent should have considered the case law relied upon by the petitioner and the submission made by the petitioner opposing grant of levy of VAT on these two items; and failure on the part of 1st respondent to do so is violative of principles of natural justice. 12. Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, does not dispute that 1st respondent had not given any reasons in the impugned order for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to levy of VAT on Infra Lease and Mess charges at the rate of 14.5%. 13. The 1st respondent, being a quasi-judicial authority, is bound to assign reasons in support of its decision, and cannot simply reject the objections of petitioner to the levy proposed by him on these two items by merely saying that the explanation of petitioner is not 'satisfactory'. The 1st respondent is obligated to supply reasons for his conclusion and failure to do so amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 14. The 1st respondent is obligated to supply reasons for his conclusion and failure to do so amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed; the impugned Assessment Order No.65175 dt.01.10.2020 passed by the 1st respondent under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 for the period March, 2015 to June, 2017 in regard to the items 'Infra lease' and 'Mess charges' alone is set aside; and the matter on these two aspects alone is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration by him; the 1st respondent shall provide a personal hearing to the petitioner; and thereafter a reasoned order shall be passed by him and communicated to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.