THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 15427 of 2009 Dated: 24-11-2009 Between: M/s Sree Saiganesh Oil Industries, Adoni, Kurnool District, rep. By its Proprietor Mr.M.Chenna Basappa …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer No.II, Adoni, Kurnool Dist. and others …Respondents. Oral order: (Per RR, J) The petitioner, a sole Proprietary concern, carrying on business in groundnuts, groundnut seeds and sunflower seeds etc., is registered as a dealer on the rolls of the 1st respondent under the APVAT Act, 2005 and CST Act, 1956. For the period April, 2005 to September, 2006, the 1st respondent completed assessment initially by his order dated 11-3-2007 and, on the application filed by the petitioner, passed an order dated 29- 11-2007 levying higher rate of tax at 8% on export sales of groundnuts and groundnut seeds and 4% on inter state sale of groundnuts and groundnut seeds not covered by C-Form. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 1-3-2008. A notice dated 13- 2-2009 was issued by the 2nd respondent informing the petitioner that the appeal was posted for hearing on 25-2-2009. The petitioner claims that he, along with his local consultant, appeared on the date of hearing, but the 2nd respondent informed them that the matter would be heard next month. While matters stood thus, the petitioner received an order passed by the 3rd respondent dismissing the appeal dated 23-3-2009 informing them that the notice issued on 13-3-2009, to appear for personal hearing on 23- 3-2009, by registered post acknowledgment due was returned with the endorsement “addressee not found in the given address”. The petitioner claims that the jurisdictional appellate authority is the 2nd respondent and not the 3rd respondent and that, in any event, the alleged notice dated 13- 3-2009 was not received by him at all. Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for commercial taxes placed a copy of the registered post envelope and the acknowledgment card before us. Perusal thereof would show that the said notice was issued not to the petitioner but to his counsel. Learned Standing Counsel would fairly state that issuance of such notice would not be a notice duly served or deemed to have been served on the petitioner, nor can it be held that the petitioner had refused to receive the notice. Without going into the question as to whether it is the 2nd or the 3rd respondent who has jurisdiction to decide the appeal, the impugned appellate order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard. As the impugned order of the 3rd respondent is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, the said order is set aside leaving it open to the concerned appellate authority to pass orders afresh after putting the petitioner on notice and after giving him an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 24th November, 2009. GRR