Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

Heard Sri. S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. T. Vinod Kumar, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes and, with their consent, all the three Writ Petitions, wherein a common question of law arises for consideration, are being disposed of by a common order at the stage of admission itself. M/s. Tejaswi Motors Pvt. Ltd. have filed W.P No. 20201 and 20199 of 2016 questioning the assessment orders passed for the financial year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 respectively. W.P. No. 20186 of 2016 is filed by M/s. Pratul Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. questioning the assessment order passed for the period April, 2012 to June, 2015.

2. Sri. S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioners seek an adjudication only on the question relating to the denial of notional input tax credit on the purchase price of used/second hand vehicles, and the petitioners would avail the statutory remedy of an appeal on all other questions of fact and law. Both Sri. S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel, and Sri. T. Vinod Kumar, Learned Special Standing Counsel, would agree that it would suffice, for the disposal of all the three Writ Petitions, if the facts in W.P No. 20199 of 2016 are noted.

3. The petitioner in W.P No. 20199 of 2016 is a registered VAT dealer carrying on business of trading in TATA brand passenger cars, and in providing spares and services. A pre-assessment show cause notice, in Form VAT 305-A dated 18.01.2016, was received by the petitioner on 18.01.2016 whereby they were called upon to file their written objections within fifteen days. Thereafter, a revised pre-assessment show cause notice was issued in Form VAT 305-A on 07.05.2016 (a copy of which was received by the petitioner on 10.05.2016) calling upon the petitioner to file their written objections thereto within seven days. The petitioner claims to have furnished the information available with them, and to have sought a personal hearing. They also claim to have submitted a detailed reply on 16.05.2016 contending, among others, that the value added tax, levied on the sale of second hand vehicles for Rs. 38,43,76,050/-, was not payable as they were eligible for notional input tax credit, under Rule 20(3)(a) of the Telangana VAT Rules (Rules for short), on the purchase value of second hand vehicles for Rs. 37,68,40,777/- and the only documentary evidence, needed for calculation of notional input tax credit, was evidence regarding the purchase price at which the petitioner had bought these motor vehicles. After a personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 26.05.2016, the Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Hyderabad passed an assessment order on 10.06.2016.

4. The impugned assessment order dated 10.06.2016 records the assessing authority having examined the reply filed by the petitioner, to the show-cause notices, wherein they had claimed that they were eligible for notional input tax credit as per Rule 20(3)(a) of the Rules; they had filed sample documents in this regard; there was neither a dealer who sold the vehicles to them nor was there any tax invoice against which the sale transactions, of pre-owned vehicles, had taken place; no input tax credit was available on the purchases from non-VAT dealers or un-registered dealers; any claim of notional input tax credit was available only on fulfilment of two imperative conditions as explained in the show cause notice i.e., (1) the ITC claim should not be greater than output tax payable, and (2) the ITC claim should be against valid documentary evidence called the tax invoice; Rule 20(3)(a) should be read along with Sections 13 and 16; the ITC restriction and disallowance was neither a levy of tax nor was it double taxation; the petitioner had explained that the old vehicles were bought and exchanged at a certain cost at the time the new vehicle was sold by them; the vehicles that were bought, and were subsequentl