IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23470 of 2007 Between: M/s. Lakshmi General Trading Co., Door No. 23-3-30, 23rd Block, Sharaff Bazar, Ponnur-522 124, Guntur District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. K. Ramasubbaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Bapatla Circle, Guntur District. 2 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Bapatla Circle, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing notices in Form-IV dt. 13-7-2007 and Form -V dt. 8-10-2007 for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.2,12,369/- for the year 1995-96 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, without service of the order of the Additional Commissioner in CCT proceedings LV(1)/583/2001 dt. 5-3-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and to set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to serve the alleged order of the Additional Commissioner dt. 5-3-2004 to the petitioner for taking further steps in the matter and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY SPL. S.C. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23470 OF 2007 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents, and, at their request, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. Petitioner, who is a dealer in pulses like black gram, green gram etc., filed this writ petition questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notices in Form-IV, dated 13.07.2007, and Form-V, dated 08.10.2007, for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.2,12,369/- for the assessment year 1995-1996 under the provisions of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the main order, dated 05.03.2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Hyderabad, basing on which the present recovery is sought to be made, has not been served on the petitioner and, therefore, the question of recovery thereof, without any notice, is not valid. A detailed counter-affidavit, sworn to by one G. Ratnagiri Babu, Commercial Tax Officer, Bapatla Circle, Guntur District, has been filed to the effect that pursuant to the order, dated 05.03.2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner, the 1st respondent passed a consequential order, dated 03.01.2005, and got it served on the petitioner together with a demand notice dated 04.03.2005. It is further stated that the order dated 05.03.2004 was sought to be sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, but however, the same was returned with postal endorsement ‘refused to take.’ It is, therefore, contended that the writ petitioner cannot have any grievance as to non-service of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal. Admittedly, the petitioner is not served with the order, dated 05.03.2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad, assessing the tax as such, and the said order is admittedly an appealable one. Unless such an order is served, the petitioner cannot avail the statutory remedy of appeal. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall be served with the order dated 05.03.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Hyderabad, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent No.1 and, on such service, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedies available to it in law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cots. ______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO ________________________ JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU 17th April, 2008. IBL To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Bapatla Circle, Guntur District. 2 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Bapatla Circle, Guntur District. 3 Two CD Copies.