IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11833 of 2010 Between: M/s. Pawan Power & Telecom Limited, D.No. 10-1-126, 204, Ashok Plaza, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Executive Director Mr. Pawan Kumar Lakhotia ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer Khairtabad Circle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondent in passing the assessment order dated 6.3.2010 for the assessment year 2006-2007 under the Central Sales Tax Act as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law and consequently to set aside the same, the petitioner filed this writ petitions. The petitioner company is a Limited Company engaged in the business of electrical cables and conductors and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the respondent. By issuing show cause notice dated 22.10.2009, for the assessment year 2006-2007, the respondent proposed to assess the petitioner for the period of June, September, December, 2006 and March, 2007. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed reply dated 16.11.2009, inter alia contending that the statutory forms already submitted were not considered while issuing the show cause notice. The respondent while rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner apart from the ‘C’ forms, assessed the tax at 10% on the turn over of Rs.9,94,20,4544/- allowing 4% concessional rate of tax on the turnover of Rs.4,63,59,397/- and issued show cause notice dated 22.10.2009. Thus it is submitted by the petitioner the proposal to levy tax at 12.5% is arbitrary. While matter stood thus, the respondent even before expiry of 21 days, issued notice dated 27.4.2010 directing the petitioner to pay the said amount within seven days, else the bank account of the petitioner would be frozen apart from levy of penal interest, etc. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the order impugned is an appealable order, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate Authority in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao June 7, 2010 MAS