IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3101 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sujatha Constructions 2-83/4, Street No. 1 Kakatiya Nagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, Formerly at 1-1-97/2, P & T Colony Habsiguda, Road No.1 Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manager, Sri K. Omkar Bapuji S/o. Late K. Krishna Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Taranka Circle, 8th Floor, B-Block Mayur Kushal Towers, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt. 29-3- 2008(Served on 23-1-2009) passed by the respondent in Assmt.No. 4403/2004-05/APCST as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to the principals of natural justices and fair play and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29-3-2008 passed by the respondent, this petition has been filed. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though it has been stated in the impugned order that it was passed on 29-3-2008, in fact, a copy of it was served upon the petitioner only on 23-1-2009. It has been further submitted that no valid show-cause notice was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. So as to substantiate the said argument, it has been submitted that the show-cause notice was served upon one Santhosh who is not an agent of the petitioner and, therefore, even if a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, the said show- cause notice is bad in law. In addition to the above submission, the learned Advocate has made certain submissions on merits of the case and has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and, therefore, it should be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, learned standing counsel Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petition should not be entertained mainly for the reason that the petitioner has not exhausted equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy. It has been submitted by him that the impugned order is an appealable order and the said fact has also been stated in the impugned order. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority instead of approaching this Court. We have heard the learned Advocates and have perused the impugned order and relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is not in dispute that the impugned order is an appealable order and it would be open to the petitioner to raise all possible contentions before the appellate authority. If, according to the petitioner, the show- cause notice was not served upon the petitioner or there was no proper service thereof, the said contention can also be raised before the appellate authority in addition to the other submissions relating to the merits of the case. For the afore-stated reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. It would be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appellate authority and raise all possible contentions and we are sure that the contentions, which might be raised by the petitioner, would be duly considered by the appellate authority. The petition is rejected with no order as to costs. _________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 18th February, 2009. GRR