IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WPMP NO. 11968 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO : 8742 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Nagarjuna Chemical Industries, Dr. No. 10-35, Kothapeta, Rangareddy Street, Dhone, Kurnool District, Rep. By Smt. S.V. Tirupathamma, LR of deceased Proprietor late Mr. S.T. Rangaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO) This writ petition has been directed against the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against an order passed by the second respondent imposing penalty and interest, for the period from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2007, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. WPMP No. 11968 of 2010 has been moved seeking amendment of the relief portion in the writ petition, specifically calling in question the validity of the appellate order dated 29.2.2009 and that the order dated 5.6.2008 imposing penalty and interest, be set aside. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, the proprietor of M/s. Nagarjuna Chemial Industries, was a dealer and he died while undergoing treatment with the Asian Institute of Gastoenterology, Hyderabad, on 5.7.2008. Thereafter, the second respondent, in June, 2009 has informed that an amount of Rs.7,67,831/- is liable to be paid by the dealer towards penalty and interest for the period commencing from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2007 under the Central Sales Tax Act, as the taxes due have not been paid. The petitioner herein, who is wife of the deceased proprietor/dealer submits that in view of lack of knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings, no steps have been taken for contesting the case and also present necessary material before the second respondent – Assessing Officer. Since the proprietor dealer has expired on 5.7.2008, we have considered it reasonable and appropriate to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioner herein to contest the matter by placing before the second respondent such material as is considered necessary and appropriate to enable him to pass an appropriate order duly taking the material that is likely to be produced by the petitioner herein. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessment order, which was carried in appeal, has been set aside by the appellate authority and that the proceedings have been remanded for consideration afresh by the second respondent - assessing authority. In this view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order dated 29.12.2009 rejecting the Appeal as well as the order passed on 5.6.2008 imposing penalty and interest and remand the matter back for fresh consideration by the second respondent. It is needless to observe that the second respondent will provide an opportunity to the petitioner to produce such material as is considered appropriate by her and take into account consideration the same, while passing orders considered appropriate. The writ petition stands disposed of with these directions. No order as to costs. The WPMP No. 11968 of 2010 is ordered accordingly. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 22, 2010 Copy within a week //BO// MAS