THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9103 of 2010 Dated:26.11.2010 Between: M/s.Nihar Glass Traders. …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9103 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The judicial review Court every time and everywhere holds a firm view that ordinarily while dealing with the grievances in relation to taxing statutes, discretion ought not to be exercised for reasons more than one. But, there are exceptions which are put to use in exceptional cases. Although the case on hand is not one such exceptional case to deviate from the norm, having regard to the fair submissions by the State’s Counsel we accept the writ petition and dispose of the same in the manner indicated hereunder. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, is a Value Added Tax dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. Statedly, they filed the returns under Section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act), for the period from April 2006 to March 2009. The first respondent proposed to assess Value Added Tax and issued the notice dated 15.02.2010 on the ground that “the purchase value figure put to sale is considerably less as and when compared to the actual sales figures”. The petitioner filed objections on 02.03.2010. Mainly one objection was raised: that the assessment for the period from April 2005 to March 2006 is barred by limitation under the VAT Act. The petitioner also sought a personal hearing. The objections were overruled, and the impugned order was passed on 08.03.2010 demanding payment of the balance tax of Rs.2,23,099/-. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the objections referred to hereinabove. The Special Counsel for Commercial Tax sought to justify the assessment order relying on Section 21(5) of the VAT Act. According to him, when there is a willful evasion of tax by an assessee the period of six years is the limitation and, therefore, the assessment is sustainable. We are not able to countenance the submission of the Special Counsel. We, however, hasten to add that this itself can be a matter which can be agitated by the petitioner before the first respondent who has denied the personal hearing although requested by the petitioner. It is now well settled that when a request is made to the Assessing Officer for personal hearing at the time of assessment of Value Added Tax, ordinarily it should not be refused (see Tirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Kadiveda (V), Nellore District v The Government of India, Ministry of Finance[1] and S.Lalaiah & Company v The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad[2]). For the above brief reasons, we set aside the impugned assessment order and remit back the matter to the first respondent. We give liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds. The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent with a copy of this order on 10.12.2010 without waiting for any further notice. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 26.11.2010 vs [1] (2005) 41 APSTJ 6 [2] (2007) 45 APSTJ 116