IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31 of 2009 Between: M/s. G.S. Oils Limited, G.S. Nagar, Adilabad, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Manoj Kumar Makhariya. ...Petitioner And 1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Adilabad Division, Adilabad. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT),Warangal Division Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ...Respondents 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12.12.2008 wherein the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed for the assessment year 2004-05 under the CST Act as illegal, arbitrary, high handed contrary, to the provisions of the Act and in violation of principles of natural justice and declare that the 2nd respondent can not dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-appearance by the petitioner since the petitioner has issued Telegram dated 18.12.2008 requesting for an adjournment and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed demands in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12.12.2008 and consequential notice issued by him dated 24.12.2008. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy Counsel for the respondents : Sri A. V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Rule. Service of notice is waived by the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard and is being disposed of. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under. Appeal No.D/36/08-09 was pending before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal, respondent No.2 herein. The Accountant of the petitioner company was not in a position to attend the hearing on 12th December, 2008 for the reason that he was having marriage of his near relative and, therefore, a telegraphic message praying for adjournment was sent to the second respondent. It is not in dispute that the telegram was received by the second respondent, but it was kept with another file as time was prayed for in two cases. In the circumstances, hearing was not adjourned and the appeal was ultimately dismissed without hearing the petitioner. In view of the above fact, as the petitioner did not get a chance to represent its case, we quash and set aside the impugned order. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the appeal can be re-heard on 2nd March, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. and the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner waives service of notice. Intimation given to the learned Advocate today shall be treated as notice. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the representative of the petitioner shall extend his cooperation and shall not pray for time unless it is really required. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 16th February, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Note: Furnish copy by 18.2.2009. (BO) To 1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Adilabad Division, Adilabad. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT),Warangal Division Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 3. Two copies to the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4. Two CD copies. ARS