THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12782 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order under challenge in this writ petition is the order of Revision dated 21.04.2009 passed by the first respondent. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business as a commission agent for sale of cashew nut kernel. The second respondent herein issued a confiscation notice seeking certain information from the petitioner and they were informed that if the information was not furnished it would be presumed that the documents, accompanying the goods, were fictitious. The petitioner claims to have submitted their objections to the said notice. The second respondent, by his order dated 28.03.2005, rejected the said objections and confiscated the entire cashew nut kernel, worth Rs.29,73,801/- under Section 29(6-B) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’). The second respondent also directed the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD) authorities to withhold the payments due to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the confiscation order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), who, by his order dated 06.05.2005, allowed the appeal setting aside the confiscation order. Thereafter the first respondent, in exercise of his suo motu revision powers under Section 20 (2) of the Act, passed an ex parte revision order on 21.04.2009, a copy of which was served on the petitioner on 27.05.2009. This order of the first respondent is questioned in this writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner would assert that no show cause notice, as required under the Act, was served on them, and that they were not given an opportunity of submitting their objections thereto. Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to the revisional order dated 21.04.2009 wherein the Additional Commissioner, while acknowledging that the notice was not served on the petitioner, observed that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Thana Check Post, should have deputed a responsible person to go for the said purpose. Since the respondents admit that no notice was served on the petitioner, we consider it appropriate to direct that the impugned order dated 21.04.2009 be itself treated as a show cause notice to which the petitioner shall be entitled to file their objections within a period of three weeks from today. On submission of such objections, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass a fresh order of revision in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in his earlier order dated 21.04.2009. It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner do not file their objections within three weeks from today, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the matter and pass final orders, in revision, in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) ___________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN , J.) 21st June, 2010 Note: C.C. in one week. (B/o) Js.