THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9101 of 2010 July 25, 2011 Between: M/s.Nihar Glass Traders, Amberpet, Hyderabad Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Azmathulla Shariff …Petitioner AND The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9101 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, a proprietary concern, is a Value Added Tax dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. Statedly, they filed the returns under Section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act), for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. The first respondent proposed to assess Value Added Tax and issued the notice dated 15.02.2010 on the ground that “the purchase value figure put to sale is considerably less as and when compared to the actual sales figures”. The petitioner filed objections on 02.03.2010. Mainly one objection was raised: that the assessment for the period from 01.4.2006 to 31.3.2009 is barred by limitation under the VAT Act. The petitioner also sought a personal hearing. The objections were overruled, and the impugned order was passed on 08.03.2010 demanding payment of the balance tax of Rs.3,07,757/-. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the objections referred to hereinabove. The Special Counsel for Commercial Tax sought to justify the assessment order relying on Section 21(5) of the VAT Act. According to him, when there is a willful evasion of tax by an assessee the period of six years is the limitation and, therefore, the assessment is sustainable. We are not able to countenance the submission of the Special Counsel. We, however, hasten to add that this itself can be a matter which can be agitated by the petitioner before the first respondent who has denied the personal hearing although requested by the petitioner. It is now well settled that when a request is made to the Assessing Officer for personal hearing at the time of assessment of Value Added Tax, ordinarily it should not be refused (see Tirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Kadiveda (V), Nellore District v The Government of India, Ministry of Finance[1] and S.Lalaiah & Company v The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad[2]). For the above brief reasons, we set aside the impugned assessment order and remit back the matter to the first respondent. We give liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds. The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent with a copy of this order on 10.8.2011 without waiting for any further notice. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) July 25, 2011 YS [1] (2005) 41 APSTJ 6 [2] (2007) 45 APSTJ 116