THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.3031 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. At their request, the Writ Petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The petitioner herein, who was the erstwhile partner of M/s. Image Granites, which was carrying on business in export of granites and is stated to have dissolved in the year 2005, filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the proceedings in R.R.No.19/2007-2008, dated 07.02.2008 revising the Assessment Proceedings issued by the second respondent for the years 2002-03 under Section 9 (2) of the C.S.T. Act read with Section 20 (2) of the APGST Act, as illegal and arbitrary. The main grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is to the effect that even though show cause notice was issued and reply was submitted by the petitioner on 19.09.2007, subsequently, the impugned order dated 07.02.2008 came to be passed without referring to the documents or the pleas raised in the reply and without giving him any opportunity. Hence, the present Writ Petition. Contesting the same, learned Government Pleader contended that subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice, another notice was issued and both the notices were received by the petitioner. Further, the order dated 07.02.2008 is also received by the petitioner. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the said representation dated 19.09.2007, he submitted two more representations dated 15.04.2008 and 16.09.2008 i.e., after passing the impugned order dated 07.02.2008, pointing out all these aspects. Be that as it may, the representations are subsequent to the impugned order; the impugned order has been received by the petitioner. Though it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is no longer in service and he is not informed about the receipt of the notices, we are not inclined to accept the said version and in view of the fact that all the proceedings have been received by the petitioner, no lenient view can be taken. However, having regard to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 21 of the APGST Act is available, we do not find any merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 15th June 2010 RRB