THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 21288 of 2009 Dated: 30-10-2009 Between: M/s Bagga Distilleries Hyderabad Private Limited, rep. by its Director Mr. Jasmit Singh Bagga. …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Rajendranagar Circle, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. Oral order: (Per RR, J) Though the petitioner has questioned the vires of Section 25 (8) of the AP VAT Act, 2005, as beyond the power of rule making authority under Section 78 of the APVAT Act, 2005, Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it would suffice, for the present, if the petitioner is given an opportunity of personal hearing before the Additional Commissioner before whom the revision petition had been filed seeking stay of the order passed by the assessing Authority. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that while the revision petition was initially posted for hearing on 4-9-2009, it was adjourned to 22-9-2009 as 4-9-2009 was a public holiday. The petitioner contends that since they were was pre-occupied with the income-tax audit, they had submitted a letter to the Additional Commissioner on 22-9-2009 requesting that the matter be taken up for hearing in the 2nd week of October. Curiously, the Additional Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 22-9-2009 recording that, since none appeared on the date of hearing, the revision petition was being disposed of on merits considering the written submissions filed by the petitioner-company. While it is not in dispute that the petitioner had sought time for oral hearing and had requested that the matter be adjourned, the order impugned in the writ petition neither records receipt of the said letter nor assigns reasons as to why the said request was not favourably considered. Having heard Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial taxes, we are satisfied that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner dated 22-9-2009 is set aside and he is directed to hear the revision petition afresh on 6-11-2009 at 11-00 AM on which date the petitioner represents that he shall remain present. The Additional Commissioner shall, thereafter, pass orders afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that, in case the petitioner’s representative is not present on the said date, it is open to the Additional Commissioner to pass orders on the material available on record including the written submissions filed by the petitioner. In case the petitioner’s representative participates in the hearing on 6-11-2009, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed penalty till orders are passed afresh by the Additional Commissioner and the said orders are communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the circumstances, no costs. _____________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30th October, 2009 GRR