ORDER : R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited, which is the petitioner, in W.P.No.4141 of 2021 and M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited, which is the petitioner, in W.P.Nos.4146, 4195 & 4046 of 2021, together had entered into a development agreement, dated 15.03.2011, for the development of certain lands situated, in Kotamangalam Village, Reniguta Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. These lands which belonged to M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited and M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited were given to M/s. Marg Limited, for construction of apartments and other buildings under the name and style of Viswashakthi Project. Under the development agreement both these entities were entitled to a share of build up area. 2. The petitioners contend that flats were constructed under the said development agreement and the completed and finished flats were sold by the developer both on account of itself as well as the flats which felt to the share of M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited and M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited. 3. The 2nd respondent, had passed Orders of assessment against M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited, for the period 2012-2013 on 10.01.2018, against M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited, for the assessment period 2013-2014 on 23.03.2018 and for the assessment period 2014-2015, dated 02.03.2019. It appears that the 2nd respondent had also passed an Order of penalty, dated 06.05.2019, against M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited, for the period 2013-2014. 4. Subsequently, the assessing authority had also taken steps for collection of these taxes by way of issuing letters, dated 20.01.2024, to the concerned Sub-Registrar, not to permit registration of any deeds of sale executed in relation to the immovable properties of M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited and M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited, being the land which was earlier owned by these two entities. 5. Aggrieved by the said letters, which effectively barred M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited from selling these flats, the said entity has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.17211 of 2024. The details of the Orders under challenge are set out in the table below:- SL .N o. Writ Petition No. Name of the Petitioner M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited. Assessment Order Number and Date A.O.No.159147, dated 06-05-2019. Name of the Authority that passed the Impugned Assessment Order The Commercial Tax Officer -II, Circle II, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 1. 4046 of 2021 M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited. Assessment Order Number and Date A.O.No.159147, dated 06-05-2019. Name of the Authority that passed the Impugned Assessment Order The Commercial Tax Officer -II, Circle II, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 1. 4046 of 2021 M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited. A.O.No.159147, dated 06-05-2019. The Commercial Tax Officer -II, Circle II, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. 4141 of 2021 M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited. A.O.No.96011/2012- 13 in Ref; S5/36/2014, dated 10-01-2018. The Commercial Tax Officer -II, Circle II, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. 4146 of 2021 M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited. A.O.No.149262 in Ref: S5/98/2015-2014-15, dated 02.03.2019. The Commercial Tax Officer -II, Circle II, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4. 4195 of 2021 M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited. A.O.No. 105756 in Ref: NIL/2013-14, dated 23.03.2018 The Commercial Tax Officer -II, Circle II, Tirupati Chittoor District. 6. The case of M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited and M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited is that the Orders had been passed behind their back and without notice to them. On merit, they contend that the impugned Orders themselves state that the tax is being levied on the sale of apartments and the consideration received for the sale of apartments. They would contend that even the 2nd respondent is admitting that what was sold are finished flats and not unfinished flats or that the consideration was received for finishing such flats subsequently. 7. Sri J.N. Venkata Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in such a situation there is no exigibility of tax and there is no liability on any of the petitioners to pay any tax on the sale of apartments. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also rely upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2014 (1) SCC 708 : 2013-TIOL-46-SC-CT-LB : (2013) 65 VST 1,  K. Raheja Development Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2005) 141 STC 298 , which were to the effect that the sale of completed flats would amount to the sale of immovable property which would be outside the scope and ambit of the General Sales Tax Act, of a State. As the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [for short “the APVAT Act”] is essentially a tax on the sale of goods, the said principles would apply to the present cases. 8. As the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [for short “the APVAT Act”] is essentially a tax on the sale of goods, the said principles would apply to the present cases. 8. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that neither M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited nor M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited would answer the description of a dealer as set out in Section-2(10) of the APVAT Act and consequently, the question of levy of tax on these two entities would not arise at all. 9. Section 2(10) of the APVAT Act, reads as follows;- Section 2:- in this Act. 9. Section 2(10) of the APVAT Act, reads as follows;- Section 2:- in this Act. unless the context otherwise requires:- ‘(10) Dealer’ means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods or delivering goods on hire purchase or on any system of payment by instalments, or carries on or executes any works contract involving supply or use of material directly or otherwise, whether for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes: (a) a company, a Hindu undivided family or any society including a co operative society, club, firm or association which carries on such business; (b) a society including a co-operative society, club, firm or association which buys goods from, or sells, supplies or distributes goods to its members; (c) a casual trader, as herein before defined; (d) any person, who may, in the course of business of running a restaurant or an eating house or a hotel by whatever name called, sells or supplies by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink whether or not intoxicating; (e) any person, who may transfer the right to the use of any goods for any purpose whatsoever whether or not for a specified period in the course of business to any other person; (f) a commission agent, a broker, a delcredere agent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods on behalf of any principal or principals; (The words in italics were added by Act No 28 of 2008 dated 24-09-2008 w.e.f 24-08-2008) Explanation I: Every person who acts as an ‘agent of a non-resident dealer’, that is, as an agent on behalf of a dealer residing outside the State, and buys, sells, supplies or distributes goods in the State or acts on behalf of such dealer as:- (i) a mercantile agent as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930; or (ii) an agent for handling goods or documents of title relating to goods; or (iii) an agent for the collection or the payment of the sale price of goods or as a guarantor for such collection or payment and every local branch of a firm or company situated outside the State; shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purpose of the Act;” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to the words “or carries on or executes any works contract involving supply or use of material directly or otherwise” and contends that these two entities would answer the description of a dealer only when they had carried on the business of execution of work contracts. When it is not even the case of the 2nd respondent that such work contracts had been carried out by these two entities, the 2nd respondent would not have jurisdiction to undertake any assessment of tax on these two entities. 11. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would draw the attention of this Court to the contention of the 2nd respondent raised in the counter affidavit filed, in W.P.No.4141 of 2021, that the petitioners M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited as well as M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited has collected VAT from the buyers of the flats and consequently, they had admitted that the sales made by them are exigibility to tax. He would also contend that all the three entities are controlled by one set of people and the entire exercise has been made only to evade payment of tax. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, would draw the attention of this Court to the letter addressed by M/s. Marg Limited, dated 22.06.2018 to the 2nd respondent setting out the details of the sales made by it along with the consideration received and the VAT, which was collected by the Sub-Registrar as tax by way of tax deduction as source. He would submit that this tax deduction at source was done by the Sub-Registrar, at the time of registration of the deeds of sale, and the same would be remitted to the department directly by the Sub-Registrar so that the credit of such payments could be made to the account of the petitioners, in the normal course. He would also submit that the petitioners had acquiesced to such a course of action for completion of the deeds of sale and such deduction at source cannot not be treated as any kind of an admission of liability to tax by the petitioners. 13. He would also submit that the petitioners had acquiesced to such a course of action for completion of the deeds of sale and such deduction at source cannot not be treated as any kind of an admission of liability to tax by the petitioners. 13. In all these cases, M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited and M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited has been treated as dealers and the sale of apartments done on their behalf, by M/s. Marg Limited, are treated as transactions which are exigible to tax under the APVAT Act. The scheme of the APVAT Act is that the tax can be levied, assessed and collected from dealers. It may not be collected or levied on a person who is not a dealer. Under Section-2(10) of the APVAT Act, extracted above defines the persons or entities which would fall within the ambit of the term “Dealer”. As can be seen from this provision, only a person, whether registered or unregistered, who takes up the activities mentioned therein falls within the ambit of the definition of dealer. In the present case, neither M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited nor M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited appear to have undertaken any of the activity set out in Section-2(10) of the APVAT Act. The counter affidavit also does not show any such activity being pointed out by the respondents. In the circumstances, neither M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited nor M/s. Yuva Constructions Private Limited can be treated as dealers unless they are shown to have conducted any activity set out in Section-2(10) of the APVAT Act. In the absence of any such averments, it would not be possible for this Court to hold that either of these two entities would fall within the definition of dealer. 14. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would submit that adequate opportunity was not available to the 2nd respondent to set out such facts and seeks such an opportunity to be given to the 2nd respondent. 15. Apart from the question of whether these two entities fall within the definition of a dealer, the question of whether the sales made by them would be amenable to tax would also remain. The APVAT Act has been enacted Entry-54 of the State List (List-II) in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. This entry relates to taxes on the sale and purchase of goods. The APVAT Act has been enacted Entry-54 of the State List (List-II) in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. This entry relates to taxes on the sale and purchase of goods. In such circumstances, it is only the sale or purchase of goods that would be exigible to tax under the provisions of the APVAT Act. Though, Article-366 (29-A) has been introduced to bring in even goods used in the course of work contracts as sales, the sale would be applicable only when the assessing authority is able to demonstrate that the person had been undertaking such activities. 16. In the present cases, the impugned assessment Orders speak only of the sale of flats. There is no mention of unfinished flats or even agreements of work executed between the purchasers of these flats and any of these entities. In the absence of any such material, the 2nd respondent, as an assessment authority, could not have attached any liability of tax to any of these entities. 17. In the circumstances, the Orders of assessment, dated 10.01.2018, 02.03.2019, and 23.03.2018 are set aside. Consequently, the Order of penalty, dated 06.05.2019 is also set aside, in as much as the Order of penalty is depend upon the Order of assessment dated 23.03.2018. 18. In view of the fact that the Orders of assessment and penalty have been set aside, nothing further remains for recovery by the tax authorities and the two letters of the 1st respondent dated 20.01.2024, in W.P.No. 17211 of 2024, are also set aside. 19. One other aspect there remains is the question of violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned Orders of assessment and penalty records that notices had been served on the petitioners prior to the passing of the said impugned Orders. The respondents have also filed a Memo enclosing the said notices to demonstrate that these had been serviced on the petitioners. This Memo filed vide USR.No.51188 of 2025, in W.P.No.4141 of 2021 also contains a statement of the respondents setting out the details of service of these notices. The said details shows that none of the notices had been served either on account of insufficient address or because such an address was not found. In the circumstances, it must be held that the said impugned orders have been passed without notice to the petitioners. 20. The said details shows that none of the notices had been served either on account of insufficient address or because such an address was not found. In the circumstances, it must be held that the said impugned orders have been passed without notice to the petitioners. 20. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would contend that no opportunity needs to be given to the respondents to ascertain whether unfinished flats had been sold or whether works contracts, after execution of the flats had been awarded to the petitioners. This is an issue which is always open to the respondents to go into, subject to the question of limitation. 21. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.