Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. Review WPMP No.17876 of 2015 was filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.34642 of 2014 dated 21.11.2014. W.P.No.434 of 2016 was filed to declare the assessment order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I on 30.08.2008, as illegal and unconstitutional, and to set aside the same. A consequential direction was sought therein to the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of the arrears of tax of Rs.12.60 crores, in the absence of a validly passed assessment order. W.P.No.5061 of 2017 was filed seeking a mandamus to declare the assessment order dated 30.08.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I, and the consequential action of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Abids, Hyderabad, in issuing a public auction notice vide letter dated 03.01.2017 in relation to the petitioners property admeasuring 2050 sq. yards situated at Khairatabad, as illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and void, and to set aside the same. The consequential direction sought therein was to direct the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of the tax amount of Rs.12.60 crores in the absence of a validly passed assessment order.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is, inter alia, engaged in the business of infrastructure development. They entered into a Concession Agreement dated 22.12.2005 with the Government of India, represented by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, for construction, operation and maintenance of Four Laning of the Pune-Hyderabad Section of NH-9 from Km 493/000 till Km 524/000 on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. They claim to have commenced laying operations in January, 2006.

3. As the petitioner did not declare their liability to tax under the A.P. VAT Act in their monthly returns, with regards the road work at Sangareddy, their books of accounts, for the tax period August, 2006 to June, 2007, were inspected on 09.08.2007. A notice was issued on 15.04.2008 directing them to produce copies of the work order relating to the road work at Sangareddy, details of the expenditure incurred from the date of commencement of the said road work, and a copy of the RA bills received, if any, for the subject road work. A notice, in Form VAT 305A, was issued on 19.05.2008, which was served on the petitioner on 02.06.2008 wherein it was recorded that, during the period August, 2006 to June, 2007, the petitioner had, besides the Indira Sagar canal work, also executed a road work at Sangareddy; but they had failed to declare the turnover, relating to the work, in their monthly returns. By their letters dated 14.06.2008, 30.06.2008 and 17.07.2008 the petitioner sought time to submit their reply, and time was granted upto 31.07.2008. The petitioner submitted their reply, which was received in the office of the Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing on 31.07.2008 and 28.08.2008 respectively, to which they enclosed only a copy of the work order which disclosed the value of the subject work as Rs.144 crores.

4. A notice dated 20.08.2008 was issued to the petitioner to produce copies of certain documents. In reply thereto, the petitioner, vide letter dated 27.08.2008, submitted certain documents, and contended that the value of the material, at the time of incorporation, could be ascertained from the work order. They, however, failed to produce details to enable value of the material, at the time of incorporation in the works, to be determined by applying Rule 17(1)(a) of the A.P. VAT Rules. As no other information was forthcoming, the petitioners taxable turnover was determined under Section 4(7)(a) of the Act, read with Rule 17(1) of the A.P. VAT Rules; and, after allowing them 30% standard deduction, the output tax, on the remaining 70% of the value of the work, was determined at 12.5% i.e., as