IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14325 of 2009 Between: M/s Sri Balaji Granites, S.No.142, D.D.Padu, Near M.C.Petrol Pump,. Kurnool-3, Kurnool District, Rep by its Proprietor, Mr. S.B.Maheeepathi Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer-III, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kurnool Division, Kurnool. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warangal Division, Warangal. 4 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the appeal vide proceedings, dated 23.03.2009 ex-parte as arbitrary, contrary to law and without jurisdiction and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent for the period May, 2005, 2006 under the CST Act as null and void Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Balaji Varma, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel, Sri Balaji Varma, appearing for the respondent authorities. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The petitioner has challenged validity of the order dated 23- 03-2009 passed by respondent No.3. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 3 had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and the said order has been passed against the principles of natural justice for the reason that without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. He has drawn our attention to the contents of the order, which reveals that registered letter was sent to the petitioner, but the same was received back by the authority, as the petitioner was not found at the given address. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has admitted the fact that the registered letter giving intimation with regard to personal hearing was not served upon the petitioner. 5. From the facts admitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order and therefore the order passed by respondent No.3 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. For the said reason, we quash and set aside the impugned order. 6. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the appeal would be heard by respondent No.2 on 10-08-2009 and the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no notice be issued to the petitioner as he waives notice of hearing on behalf of the petitioner. 7. It is clarified that the petitioner or his representative shall not pray for time on 10-08-2009 so as to enable respondent No.2 to hear the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21st July, 2009 ks