IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5840 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Srinivasa Auto Corporation (N.F.), Auto Nagar, Proddatur, rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Arvati Nagaraju .... Petitioner AND Commercial Tax Officer – I, Proddatur, Kadapa District and another .... Respondents HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5840 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing registration as VAT dealer to the petitioner with effect from 01-06-2008 instead of 01-04-2006 and in passing the assessment order dated 15-02-2010 in GRN No.KDP/08/1/3238/2006-07 for the assessment year 2006-07 without granting input tax credit and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, though specifically sought for by the petitioner in its objections dated 10-09-2009, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently to set aside the same, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is carrying on business in Automobile Spares, Tractor Spares and Lubrication Oils and is a registered Turnover Tax Dealer under the Act on the rolls of respondent No.2 herein. While so, respondent No.1 has issued show cause notice dated 25-07-2008 for the assessment year 2006-07 to the petitioner calling for its objections. The petitioner filed its objections on 10-09-2009 before respondent No.1 requesting to give effect to the VAT registration to the petitioner from 01-04-2006, claiming exemption for input tax credit; and also claimed for levying tax @ 4% on some of the goods. The petitioner further contended in its objections that it has already paid 1% TOT, as such, the same has to be deducted from the VAT due and also requested for its personal hearing. But respondent No.1 without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, though specifically sought for by the petitioner, has issued the impugned order dated 15-02-2010. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 4. Having gone through the entire material available on record and having heard the learned counsel on either side, without going into the merits of the impugned assessment order, we set aside the same only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and remand the matter back to respondent No.1 for passing an order afresh giving proper notice and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that the petitioner will appear before respondent No.1 on 07-04-2010. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 07-04-2010 without fail and respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not cooperate with respondent No.1 in disposal of the matter, the impugned order shall stand operative. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J March 18, 2010 ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Note: Issue CC in three days. B/O. KTL