THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16653 of 2010 Dated:14.07.2010 Between: M/s.Satya Concrete Pavers (P) Limited, Kethanakonda, Krishna District, rep., by its Managing Director S.Suresh .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Nandigama Circle, Krishna District And others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16653 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Fly Ash Pavers. It was registered as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. For the assessment year 2004-2005, final assessment order was passed on 03.03.2008 determining the net turnover of Rs.1,44,78,358/- on which tax of Rs.11,94,371/- was paid. The petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada, was partly allowed on 29.11.2008. Thereafter, the first respondent again issued a fresh assessment order dated 09.04.2009 for the assessment year 2004-2005 duly incorporating the modifications ordered by the appellate authority, as a result of which the tax component was reduced to Rs.1,66,509/-. The first respondent also issued Form-C notice admitting that the petitioner had paid Rs.6,14,329/- towards tax. The petitioner then sought refund, in vain. They filed W.P.No.2321 of 2010 for refund. The same was disposed of and the excess tax paid was refunded. In the meanwhile, the third respondent issued the impugned notice, namely, the Revisional Show Cause Notice (hereafter called the RSCN) on 19.04.2010 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the appellate order should not be set aside and the original assessment order be restored. The petitioner submitted its explanation thereto on 04.06.2010. In the said explanation, the petitioner requested for four documents mentioned therein. Even before the same could be considered, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the RSCN as arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. He would urge that the RSCN is based on the report submitted by the Joint Commissioner, Audit Office of the Commissioner and, therefore, it is without jurisdiction. Secondly, when the petitioner had specifically asked for information, the second respondent was proceeding with the adjudication of the RSCN, without furnishing the same, which is arbitrary and illegal. There is no dispute that the second respondent is yet to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner’s Writ Petition is sought to be sustained on the ground that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate the revision under Section 22 of the Act. We are not able to countenance these submissions. Against a show cause notice, a Writ Petition would not lie. Even where the question of jurisdiction is raised, while challenging a show cause notice, ordinarily a Writ Court would not interfere (see. Special Director v Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[1]). Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned show cause notice. Insofar as the other submission is concerned, the same does not go to the root of the jurisdictional authority. The denial of fair treatment by a judicial authority may amount to error within the jurisdiction which can always be corrected by an appellate authority, in this case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Be that as it is, the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes submits that the documents requested by the petitioner shall be furnished as and when the petitioner approaches the second respondent. We record the same. The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is dismissed. No costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 14.07.2010 KH [1] (2004) 3 SCC 440 (Paragraph No.5)