HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14641 AND 14785 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax. At their request, both these writ petitions are disposed of at the stage of admission. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is common, it would suffice for their disposal to note the facts as referred to in W.P.No.14641 of 2010. The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in advertising and leasing of computers and furniture. It is a registered dealer, under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, the A.P. Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, on the rolls of the first respondent. For the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008- 09, the petitioner was issued a show notice by the first respondent on 20.07.2009, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 57(4) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, proposing forfeiture of the excess tax collected and paid by them; and penal action under Section 10(f) of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the petitioner had collected excess tax in contravention of Section 9A of the A.P.General Sales Tax Act. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed their objections on 17.08.2009 which was received by the first respondent on 19.08.2009. In his letter dated 17.08.2009, the petitioner raised several objections regarding the proposed action of forfeiture of excess tax; penal action sought to be taken under Section 10(f) of the Central Sales Tax Act; and requested that the forfeited excess tax be refunded. The first respondent passed an order of assessment dated 01.05.2010 without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner. The assessing authority notes that no objections were filed. When the matter came up on 28.06.2010, Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel, sought time to obtain instructions. Today, the Learned Special Standing Counsel would submit that, while the documents filed by the petitioners do show that the objections were filed by them in reply to the show cause notice, the assessing authority had passed the order without referring to the objections inasmuch as the objections were not part of the record placed before him. The fact that the petitioners had filed their objections before the first respondent is not in dispute and, since the assessing authority had passed the order of assessment without referring to the objections filed by the petitioners, the impugned orders stand vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to quash the order of forfeiture and permit the assessing authority to pass orders afresh, in accordance with law, after considering the objections submitted by the petitioners. Since the petitioners have also requested that an opportunity of being heard be given, the assessing authority shall provide such an opportunity to the petitioners and, thereafter, pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. B. PRAKASH RAO, J RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:05.07.2010 Usd/ktl