IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 5 4 2 OF 2010 Between : M/s. Naidu Motors Limited, 10-5-158, Level-I, Naidu Towers, SD Road, Secunderabad, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri G. Ajay Naidu. … Petitioner V/ s. The Commercial Tax Officer, SD Road Circle, Hyderabad & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. S. Krishna Murthy & S. Suri Babu Counsel for the Respondents: GOVT.PLEADER FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Order of the Division Bench follows on 2nd page THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 5 4 2 OF 2010 O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) Seeking mandamus to set aside the appeal order dated 06-1-2010 passed by the third respondent - Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, in Appeal No. BV/73/2007-08 for the assessment period 2006-07 (AP Value Added Tax) and to direct the third respondent to consider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and to pass orders in accordance with law, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is an authorised dealer for M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgoan, for the sale of Maruti Cars in the State of Andhra Pradesh and are registered dealers under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and are assesses on the rolls of the first respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has been submitting monthly VAT-200 returns regularly and has been paying tax on the sales of Motor Cars effected by it every month. It is also stated that the second respondent conduct VAT Audit on the petitioner company on 19-09-2007 which resulted in the passing of assessment of VAT in Form-305 for the assessment period December 2006 to march 2007 raising a demand of Rs.37,85,954-00. It is further stated that in the said assessment orders, the second respondent subjected the temporary registration charges, insurance and life-tax charges, handling charges and extended warranty charges to tax treating the same as turnover at the hands of the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the third respondent. By the impugned proceedings dated 06-2-2010, the third respondent dismissed the appeal on the ground that the authorised representative of the petitioner company has not appeared before the third respondent when the case was posted for hearing and as such, the appeal was dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner’s counsel was hospitalized and was on bed rest because of ill-health for nearly five months and as such, the petitioner‘s counsel could not attend the case. Hence, the writ petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, but the third respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner’s counsel was hospitalised and was on bed rest because of ill-health for nearly five months and there was no wilful disobedience but it was only due to the reason explained as supra. But the third respondent without considering the same dismissed the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner’s counsel has been hospitalised and the third respondent has passed the orders in the appeal ex-parte and imposed tax of Rs.37,85,954-00. It is also stated that the petitioner has no opportunity to contest the matter because of hospitalization of the counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the third respondent – Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded back to the third respondent - Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad with a direction to restore the appeal filed by the petitioner and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing the petitioner ‘s counsel and after hearing the petitioner’s counsel let the matter be decided on merits and in accordance with law, subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit 1/3rd of demanded amount of Rs.37,85,954-00 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving credit to the amount already paid. It is also made clear that this order is passed only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed off at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ____________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHAN RAO 25-III-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 5 4 2 OF 2010 ORDER of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari Circulation Entry No. 4 3 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L Date: 25-III-2010