IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 24544 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sri Anil Sanitary Stores, Prakasam Road Governorpet, Vijayawada, rep.by its Partner Mr.K.Narasimha R ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, Governorpet circle Vijayawada 2 The Deputy Commercial Tax officer, Governorpet circle Vijayawada .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned distraint order dated 15.10.2008 demanding an amount of Rs.12,15,834/- for the assessment year 2002-03 and Rs.7,69,310/- for the assessment year 2003-04 under the APGST Act on the ground that the petitioner fell in arrears of tax without even serving any re-assessment orders alleged to have been passed by the 1st respondent dated 18.12.2007 for the assessment year 2002-03 and dated 29.4.2008 for the assessment year 2003-04 as illegal,arbitrary, high handed without authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and declare that as long as the re- assessment orders are not served on the petitioner the respondents have no authority and jurisdiction to demand the disputed taxes and to initiate any coercive action for recovery of the disputed demands and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (PER GR, J) The order of Distraint dated 15-10-2008 passed against the petitioner/assessee by the second respondent in respect of the tax due for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, is assailed inter alia on the ground that the petitioner/assessee was not served with the re- assessment orders of the first respondent. At the stage of admission, the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would submit that though the re-assessment orders were drawn up by the ﬁrst respondent, they could not be duly served on the assessee. The re-assessment orders were aﬃxed on the business premises of the assessee, but that is not a due mode of service. The respondents would now take steps to serve the re-assessment orders on the assessee in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. In the light of the above submission by the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes which indicates that the orders of re-assessment for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 though drawn up by the ﬁrst respondent have not yet been duly served on the assessee, the order of Distraint dated 15- 10-2008 passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. The respondents are however at liberty to serve the re-assessment orders on the assessee and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. No order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J 17th November 2008 Note: Office to issue copy as soon as possible. B/o CVRK