THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 1750 of 2010 Dated: 11-2-2010 Between: Dish TV India Limited, rep. by Mr.Jagdish P.Rathi …Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Order: (Per RR, J) The order under challenge in this writ petition is the assessment order dated 31-12-2009 whereby the petitioner was assessed to tax of Rs.1,72,23,552-00 under the AP VAT Act, 2005 on the sale of recharge coupons during the period March, 2008 to September, 2009. While several contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner, it would suffice to note that the order under challenge is on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice since notice of hearing was not served on the authorised representative of the petitioner as required under Rules 63 and 64 of the AP VAT Rules, 2005. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that Rule 64 (1) (b) prescribes the mode of service of orders or notices, these Rules provide that a notice or other document, required or authorised under the Act or the Rules to be served, shall be considered as sufficiently served on any other person if it is personally served on the nominated person; or it is left at the registered office of the person or the person’s address for service of notices under the Act or it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person in the State. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that as the notice was sent to the petitioner’s godown it did not amount to due service under Rules 63 and 64 of the AP VAT Rules. On the other hand Sri P.Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would contend that the mode of service in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 64 (1)(b) are in the alternative and it is open to the Assessing Authority to choose one of the modes of service prescribed therein. Learned Special Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the Assessing Authority was, however, ready and willing to give one more opportunity to the petitioner and pass an assessment order afresh after putting him on notice and giving an opportunity of being heard. In view of this submission, we consider it wholly unnecessary to examine the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner including the interpretation of Rules 63 and 64 of the AP VAT Rules, 2005. The impugned order of assessment is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority who shall put the petitioner on notice, give them an opportunity of personal hearing, and thereafter pass an order afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 11th February, 2010. GRR