IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos : 17106; 17117; 17161; 17162 and 17199 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 17106 of 2008 Between: Sri Sabari Vidyaniketan (EM), School, # 10-1-137(9) Opp: SBI, Rayadurg,rep.by its Correspondent B.Bhanu Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND The Profession Tax Officer-II, Dy.Commercial Tax Officer-II, Anantapur .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of mandamus declaring the demand notice in Rc.No. dated 16.7.2008 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary,inoperative and contrary to the provisions of AP Profession Tax Act,1987 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.SUNIL KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX WRIT PETITION NO : 17117 of 2008 Between: Crescent E.M. Upper Primary School, # 12-2-168, Rayadurg, Anantapur District. Rep by its Correspondent D. Shashida Begum ..... PETITIONER AND Profession Tax Officer-II, Dy. Commercial Tax Officer-II, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of mandamus declaring the demand notice in R.C.No. dated 16-7-2008 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary inoperative and contrary to the provisions of AP Profession Tax Act,. 1987 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.SUNIL KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX WRIT PETITION NO : 17161 of 2008 Between: Viswa Bharathi (TM) Upper Primary School, # 10-3-336, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, rep. by its Correspondent, T. Ramanatham. ..... PETITIONER AND Profession Tax Officer-II, Dy. Commercial Tax Officer-II, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of mandamus declaring the demand notice in Rc.No. dated 16.07.2008, passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary inoperative and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Profession Tax Act, 1987 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.SUNIL KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX WRIT PETITION NO : 17162 of 2008 Between: Viswa Bharathi (E.M.) Upper Primer School, #10-3-336(13), Rayadurg, Anantapur Dist., Rep. by its Correspondent T.Ramanatham. ..... PETITIONER AND Profession Tax Officer - II, Dy. Commercial Tax Officer-II, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of Mandamus declaring teh demand notice in Rc.No. , dated 16.07.2008 passed by the the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary inoperative and contrary to the provisions of AP Profession Tax Act, 1987 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.SUNIL KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX WRIT PETITION NO : 17199 of 2008 Between: Sri Sai Baba(EM) High School, D.No.17/1212, Rajendra Nagar, Guntkal, Rep by its Correspondent, Y.Prasuna, ..... PETITIONER AND Profession Tax Officer, Dy. Commercial Tax Officer,Guntakal. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of mandamus declaring the demand notice in R.C.No.35/06, dated 08-07-2008 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, inoperative and contrary to the provisions of AP Profession Tax Axt, 1987 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.SUNIL KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following common order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR Dated: 20-02-2009 W.P.Nos. 17106; 17117; 17161; 17162 and 17199 of 2008 Oral Common Order: (Per: GR, J) These writ petitions involve common issue and therefore are heard and disposed of together by this common order. The facts in W.P.No. 17106 of 2008 are representative of the facts in all the writ petitions. In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the demand notice dated 16-07-2008 issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay Professional Tax dues in an amount of Rs.13,500-00 for the years 1996-97 to 2004-05 (nine years) and the notice states that the petitioner failed to pay Professional Tax for the stipulated years despite the liability to pay the tax on or before the 30th June of every year. The petitioner is also sensitized as to the Professional Tax liability for each years at the rates applicable as per the I-Schedule of category 20 (i) thereof. The petitioner assails the notice on several grounds including that it is not preceded by a notice proposing assessment prior to the determination of the Professional Tax liability of the petitioner as contained in the impugned notice dated 16-07-2008. Since the petitioner is now called upon to pay Professional Tax dues for a cumulative period of nine years from 1996-97 to 2004-05, it is appropriate that it should have been afforded an opportunity before such determination. Even if the petitioner had not filed a return and the assessment is suo motu by the Assessing Authority on a best judgment of the facts, circumstances and material on record, it is obligatory that the Assessing Authority shall serve a notice upon the petitioner calling upon it to show cause why the prima facie assessed tax be not recovered from it. This procedure and due process has not been followed by the respondent who straightaway proceeded to issue the impugned notice demanding payment of Professional Tax. In the circumstances the writ petitions are disposed of declaring that the impugned “urgent notice” dated 16- 07-2008 is in the nature of a show cause notice to which the petitioner shall respond within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the response from the petitioner, if any, the respondent shall consider the same and proceed to make an assessment, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J Dated: 20-02-2009 Pvks