IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14909 of 2009 Between: M/s. Haabia Advertising (I) Private Limited, 2-92/5, Khanamet, Hi-tech City, Hyderabad - 500 081, Rep by its Director, Mr. N. Venkata Ratnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the 2nd respondent in RR No.116/2006-07, dated 18-5-2009 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction under section 20 (2-A) of the APGST Act and contrary to the settled judgments and also in violation of principles of natural justice and restore the order of 1st Respondent dated 20-5-2005. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA (SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES) The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Rule. Service of notice is waived by Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. In this petition, the order dt.18.5.2009 passed by respondent No.2 has been challenged on the ground that though the objections were filed by the petitioner on 12.5.2009, which were to be considered by respondent No.2 before deciding the case on his hand, the same were not considered though the impugned order was passed on 18.5.2009. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that though the objections filed by the petitioner had been received by the Registry of respondent No.2 on 12.5.2009, the same were not placed along with the relevant records, which were to be perused by respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order. In the aforesaid circumstances, the objections filed by the petitioner on 12.5.2009 could not be perused and considered by respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order dt.18.5.2009. The aforestated facts clearly reveal that though the petitioner had filed its objections on 12.5.2009, without considering the said objections, the impugned order was passed on 18.5.2009. It has been suggested by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties that respondent No.2 be asked to decide the matter again after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.2 shall hear the representative of the petitioner on 17.8.2009 at 11.00 a.m. and after considering his submissions, which might be orally made, and the objections of the petitioner filed on 12.5.2009, decide the matter afresh. In view of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29-07-2009 bnr