THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.3898 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner herein claiming to be a Power of Attorney of an alleged original dealer by name M/s. Sri Sainath Traders at Girupuram, Tirupati, files this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking a Mandamus assailing the correctness of the proceedings initiated against him by issuance of Form-4 dated 05.02.009 purportedly under Section 25 of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, by the respondent herein for the purpose of recovery mentioned thereunder. The said notice appears to have served on the petitioner on 18.02.2009. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he is only a Power of Attorney and no way concerned with the real activity nor any such proceedings initiated directly against him. The said dealer was a dealer registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and also an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupati-I Circle, Tirupati. In view of the same, the entire action is illegal and hence, liable to be set aside. In the counter affidavit, which has been sworn to by Sri C.Swamaynatham, Deputy Commercial Officer (Tirumala), Tirupati-I Circle, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner himself is the actual owner of M/s. Sri Sainath Traders. Further, in para-7 of the counter, it is mentioned that it is only a sham power of attorney executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent is subsequently added in the Writ Petition at the instance of the petitioner. Further, the second respondent is not traceable to the department for realization of the tax due. Though the petitioner filed reply denying the averments made in the counter, the fact remains that having regard to the specific allegations made against the petitioner, his personal involvement and the very nature of the transaction, this Court cannot go into the relationship between the petitioner and the said dealer. No doubt, it is well settled principle that the power of attorney cannot be proceeded against by the action of the dealer. However, the petitioner cannot be absolved until and unless proper enquiry is held, where all these aspects have to be gone into. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed and since, the impugned action is one of attachment, the said notice shall be treated as show cause notice to which the petitioner can file his explanation within a period of two {2} weeks from today. All the petitioner’s pleas can be gone into in the enquiry. We also make it clear that till the final orders are passed, no proceedings be initiated nor any steps be taken against the petitioner. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 29th June 2010 RRB