IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH 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 : 15435 of 2009 Between: Nannapani Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Tataiah, Hindu, Vijaya Marketing Associates, R/o. 2-2-46, Tadiboyanvari Street, Gandhinagar, Tenali, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam Bench, Rep. by its Secretary, Visakhapatnam. 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Commercial Tax Department Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhi Chowk, Tenali. .....RESPONDENTS 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 pass an order or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in T.A.No. 211/2008, dated: 23.06.2009 is illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequentially to set aside the order and to restore the Appeal Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes 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 A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 23-06-2009 passed by respondent No. 1 – the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed for default for the reason that the petitioner did not remain present on the day when the appeal was heard by the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already submitted written arguments and in that event, the Tribunal should have considered the arguments and should have decided the appeal on merits, instead of dismissing the same due to the absence of the petitioner or his representative. 5. Upon hearing the learned advocates, we have come to know that the petitioner has already submitted an application for re- admission of the appeal under the provisions of Regulation 9 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957 and the said application is still pending before the Tribunal. 6. In view of the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner is pending before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. It would be open to the petitioner to place on record of the Tribunal, an affidavit giving details as to why he or his representative could not remain present before the Tribunal on the date when the appeal was to be heard. 7. We are sure that the Tribunal shall look into the application for re-admission filed by the petitioner on 13-07-2009 and the affidavit giving reasons which might be filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal and after hearing the petitioner, the Tribunal would take appropriate decision on the subject matter of re-admission of the appeal. 8. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit on or before 10-08-2009 and we are sure that the Tribunal shall decide the application dated 13-07- 2009 as soon as possible and preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the affidavit. 9. Till the Tribunal decides the application dated 13-07-2009, no coercive action shall be taken for recovery of the amount of tax. 10. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30th July, 2009 ks Note: Furnish Copy by Monday. B/O ks