THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19933 of 2007 Date: 6th February, 2008 Between : M/s. Gattu Mallaiah Sons, 16/68, Basapuram Road, Adoni. …..Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Kurnool and others. …..Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19933 of 2007 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to declare the order of the 1st respondent in revoking the Certificate of Settlement issued on 8.11.2001 in Form-III through the impugned proceedings dated 20.6.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Sales Tax Settlement of Disputes Act, 2001. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a dealer on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Adoni. Petitioner was engaged in the business of processing and packing of raw cotton. While so, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Adoni had imposed penalty of Rs. 1,25,743/- on the petitioner on the ground that it has misused ‘C’ Forms for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, CT, Kurnool and the learned Appellate Deputy Commissioner while setting aside the order of the assessing authority, allowed those appeals. However, subsequently, the 2nd respondent with a view to revise the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, issued show cause notices to the petitioner calling upon it to file objections and the petitioner submitted its explanation to the same. The 2nd respondent, through proceedings dated 18.4.2001 while setting aside the order the Appellate deputy Commissioner, has confirmed the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. Questioning the same, the petitioner again preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 27.8.2001. During the pendency of the appeals before the S.T.A.T., the Government of Andhra Pradesh with a view to settle the disputes relating to A.P.G.S.T. and C.S.T., brought into existence Act 3 of 2001 known as Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Settlement of Disputes Act, 2001. The petitioner, then approached the concerned authorities for settlement of the dispute on 31.8.2001 by way of an application. The 1st respondent through proceedings dated 15.10.2001 determined the amount of penalty payable at 10% of the total penalty amount. The petitioner also stated to have paid the said amount, pursuant to which, the Certificate of Settlement in Form No. III was issued to the petitioner on 17.11.2001. However, the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 22.11.2001 revoked the said Certificate of Settlement on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose about the factum of disposal of the revision petitions by the 2nd respondent on 18.4.2001 and further observed that the amount already paid shall be treated to have been paid towards penalty for the assessment years. Aggrieved, it filed W.P. No. 2552 of 2002 before this Court. Through order dated 6.3.2007, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition and remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the said order the 1st respondent has issued notice dated 30.4.2007 to the petitioner calling upon it to file objections proposing to revoke the Certificate of Settlement dated 8.11.2001. The petitioner then filed his objections to the said show cause notice on 7.6.2007. The 1st respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dated 20.6.2007 revoking the Certificate of Settlement. Aggrieved the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even though the proceedings as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Settlement of Disputes Act, 2001 are pending, the first respondent has erroneously passed the impugned order. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. While opposing the contentions, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the 2nd respondent and revisional authority passed order on 18.4.2001 after examining all the objections filed by the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner did not prefer further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad before filing of application in Form No. I. Though the petitioner stated that revisional proceedings were pending as on 31.8.2001, the same was found to be false. That apart, even though the petitioner claimed that it has filed appeals before the Tribunal on 27.8.2001, the same is without any basis and if such appeals were filed, there was no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner as to why it could not mention the same in the application dated 31.8.2001. We have gone through the impugned order. Though the petitioner did not mention about the factum of filing of appeals in the application dated 30.8.2001, however, on a perusal of the material papers filed in support of the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner in fact filed such appeals on 27.8.2001 itself. It erroneously did not mention the same in the application dated 30.8.2001. Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 20.6.2007 of the 1st respondent and remand the matter back to him respondent for passing appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 6th February, 2008 ______________ G. ROHINI, ,J pnb