IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.5161 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Venakateswara Traders, D.No. 10/5/15, Park Road, Sattenapalli - 522 403, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.Kasu Rama Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Sattenapalli. 2 The Deputy Commissioner ( CT ), Guntur - II Division, Guntur .....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 to issue an appropriate writ of Mandamus order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the revision proceedings, dated 10-10-2007, vide R.V.No. 1/2007-08/LI, for the assessment Year 2002-03 as arbitrary, contrary to l;aaw and in violation of Principles of natural justice and also against rule of law and consequently set aside the same as null and viod and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.5161 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B,Prakash Rao) Heard on either side and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned revision proceedings dated 10.10.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent for the assessment years 2002-03, inter alea, on various grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not given any notice or any opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. Per contra, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submitted that notice was given on 14.03.2007 and it was served on some other person i.e. proxy of the petitioner at the instance of the petitioner, and hence the grievance of the petitioner is not sustainable. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record, and having regard to the fact that no notice has been served on the petitioner and there is no proper explanation as to why the notice was served on the proxy at the instance of the petitioner or otherwise, We feel that there appears to be a violation of Rules of Natural Justice, and on this ground alone, We set aside the order impugned. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, We direct that the impugned order should be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner may file his reply/explanation, within a period of two weeks from today, and thereafter the respondents shall hear him and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ C.Y.SOMAYAJULU.J Dated: 18.03.2008 Dsr ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Sattenapalli. 2 The Deputy Commissioner ( CT ), Guntur - II Division, Guntur 3.2CCs to 4.2CD copies