HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And HON'BLE SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21445 of 2009 Between: M/s. Visakha Jewellery. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer and another. .....RESPONDENTS HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21445 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner is a registered VAT dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kurupam Market Circle, Visakhapatnam. They claim to be carrying on business in the purchase and sale of silver articles and that these purchases were from dealers situated outside the State as well as dealers within the State. They contend that they were purchasing silver articles by weight with a purity of 65% to 85% of silver and the remaining percentage consisting of white metal and copper and that the mixture of white metal and copper with silver ranges between 5% to 25% depending upon the process of manufacture of the items concerned. The first respondent visited the premises of the petitioner on 27.08.2009 and conducted VAT audit. He verified the books of accounts for the period 01.08.2005 till 31.07.2009. On verification of the invoices, the first respondent observed that the petitioner had purchased and sold “Mixed metal silver articles” and had paid VAT tax at 1% under item 2 of the III Schedule of the AP VAT Act, 2005, instead of 12.5%. A show cause notice was issued by the first respondent on 31.08.2009 proposing to levy tax at 12.5% on the entire turnover of silver articles. The petitioner’s contention that they were liable to pay tax only at 1%, under entry 2 of III Schedule of the AP VAT Act, 2005, was rejected. The petitioner filed their objections on 31.08.2009 and the first respondent, thereafter, passed the impugned order of assessment, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Orient Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupathi, (Civil Appeal No. 4491 of 2002 dated 12.03.2008). Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. While the vires of Rule 59(4)(ii) of the AP VAT Rules, 2005, is under challenge, Sri Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the scope of Entry 20 of the 1st Schedule to the APGST Act, 1957 and the explanation thereunder was in issue, whereas in the present case, item 2 to Schedule III of the A.P. VAT Act had no such explanation. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was also denied an opportunity of personal hearing, though such a request had been made by them. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. We consider it unnecessary, therefore, to examine other grounds since the writ petition is required to be allowed on the short ground that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent who shall, after putting the petitioner on notice, and after permitting them to file additional objections, give them an opportunity of personal hearing. It is open to the first respondent, thereafter, to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not examined the challenge to vires of Rule 59(4) (ii) of the AP VAT Rules, 2005, in this writ petition. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt.04.11.2009 usd