IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 1799 of 2008 Between: M/s. K.R.Constructions, Works Contractors, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri.Y.Chinna Reddy S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o.27- 1083, 3rd Lane, Ramji Nagar, Nellore - 524 002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commercial TAx Officer, No.ii< Kavali Circle, Kavali, Nellore District. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kavali Circle, Kavali, Nellore District. 3 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) S.R. Builders Building, R.R. Street, Nellore, Nellore District .....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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Form-IV, dt. 24.10.2007 for collection of taxes of Rs.19,27,916/- for the assessment year 2002-03 APGST without serving orders by the respondents No.2 and 3 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act, 1957 and set aside the same. Consequently, direct the respondents not collect any taxes for the assessment year 2002-03 without serving assessment order or revision order by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KUNUKUDURGAPRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) By an order dated 08-02-2008, upon payment of 50% of the amount of tax demanded, interim relief as prayed for was granted to the petitioner. It has been informed by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents that even the amount payable under order dated 08-02-2008 has not been paid so far. In view of the said fact, interim relief which was granted earlier cannot be continued. More over, upon going through the counter affidavit filed by the Commercial Tax Officer, it is found that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice and in the circumstances, the impugned order had to be passed. It is also pertinent to note that the averment made in the petition that the revision order was not served upon the petitioner is not correct as the order passed in the revision had been sent to the petitioner – assessee by registered post acknowledgment due and the said fact has been clearly incorporated in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. There is no reason to disbelieve the said statement made by the responsible officer. In the above circumstances, we do not see any reason to grant any relief and, therefore, the petition is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 1st June, 2009. ks