IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 1768 of 2009 Between: M/s. Manasa Associates, D.No.4-161, Madavi Nagar, Feroziguda, Hyderabad. Rep. by its M. Balaji, Managing Partner. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Tax Department, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Feroziguda Circle, 3rd floor, Gaganvihar, Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned proceedings Asst.No.Rc.01/3063/04-05 (APGST) dated 6.12.2008 as arbitrary, capricious, in violation of Art. 14, 21 of the Constitution of India as well as in contrary to the provision of APGST Act, 1957 in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an assessment order bearing Asst.No.R.C.No.01/3063/04-05 (APGST) dated 06.12.2008 made by the 3rd respondent-assessing officer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, this petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee. Among several other grounds, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-assessee, has mainly submitted that the 3rd respondent-assessing officer has referred to a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of M/s.Konarak Fabricators India Ltd vs. High Court of A.P. : (2) APSTJ 1999 for the purpose of coming to a particular conclusion in the impugned order. It has been submitted that in spite of all possible efforts made by the petitioner-assessee and his representative, the aforesaid judgment could not be traced and, therefore, he has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that the assessing officer has referred to a judgment which does not exist. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities has fairly submitted that a mistake has been committed by the 3rd respondent-assessing officer while referring citation of the judgment in the impugned order. In fact, the 3rd respondent-assessing officer wanted to refer to a judgment in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. KONE ELEVATORS (I) LTD.[1]. We have heard the learned advocates and gone through the impugned order. It appears that because of a mistake, citation of a judgment has not been correctly reproduced in the impugned order. Had the petitioner been informed about the aforestated judgment, the representative of the petitioner could have distinguished or dealt with the said judgment and, therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to represent its case before the assessing officer. In view of the said fact, the impugned assessment order is set aside without going into the other contentions raised in the petition. The learned advocates and the 3rd respondent have agreed that the 3rd respondent-assessing officer shall hear the matter on 09.03.2009 at 11.00 AM, and the learned advocate for the petitioner has assured that objections, if any, shall be filed by the petitioner-assessee before the 3rd respondent-assessing officer on or before 06.03.2009 and the 3rd respondent-assessing officer need not give any notice to the petitioner-assessee with regard to the hearing which is to take place on 09.03.2009 as the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has waived notice on behalf of the petitioner-assessee. We are sure that the 3rd respondent- assessing officer shall hear all contentions which might be raised by the petitioner-assessee and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th February 2009 CVRK Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o CVRK [1] (2005) 140 STC 22