IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 28664 of 2008 Between: M/s Saina Informatics Private Ltd Q 4-A 1 10 th Floor Cyber Towers Madhapur Hyderabad presently at 403-406 4th Floor Myhome Ashoka Chambers S.P Road Sec'bad-3 Rep.by its Director Sri Aijaz ali Khan ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Madhapur Circle 1st Floor Gaganvihar Complex Opp Exhibition Grounds Nampally Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner Commercial Tax Officer 1st Floor Commercial Tax Complex Opp Gandhi Bhavan Nampally Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt 03-03-2008 (served on 16-12-2008) passed by the1st respondent in Assessment No.3/4551/2004-05 (CST) as illegal arbitrary unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently set aside the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.28664 AND 28667 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Notice is waived by the Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents in both the petitions. At the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are finally heard today. The petitioner-company has been aggrieved by two assessment orders bearing No.3/4551/2004-05 dated 3.3.2008 served on it 16.12.2008. One has been passed under the Central Sales Tax whereas another has been passed under the provisions of A.P. General Sales Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned assessment orders were passed. It has been fairly submitted that the show cause notices had been sent to it on 31.12.2007, as stated in the impugned orders, but admittedly the said show notices were not served upon the petitioner because it had changed its address. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that intimation with regard to the change of address was given to the respondents under letter dated 10.6.2008. In the said letter new address was stated by the petitioner – company. But, in spite of the same, the show notices had been sent to petitioner at the old address. It has been, therefore, submitted that the impugned assessment orders and the demands made in pursuance of the said orders are bad in law as they are violative of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the Learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax has submitted that due efforts were made by the respondent – authorities to serve the show cause notices upon the petitioner company. It is submitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities that the show cause notices were first of all sent to the petitioner through a process server and as they were not served upon the petitioner – company, they were sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. According to him, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed[1], once a registered letter is sent to a person, it is deemed to have been served as per the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders as well as the demand notices are just and proper. We have heard the learned advocates and we find that it is an admitted fact that the show cause notices sent to the petitioner were not served upon the petitioner. The said fact has also been stated in the impugned assessment order. In our opinion, when the respondent authorities came to know that the show cause notices were not served upon the petitioner – company, the respondents ought to have adopted another mode for service of the show cause notices. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents would not help the respondent authorities for the reason that in the instant case the address recorded in the notice sent to the petitioner was not correct. It appears that the address of the petitioner-company had been changed. The respondent -authorities had sent impugned demand notices to the petitioner company at a different address. Thus, it is crystal clear that the address at which the show cause notices were sent was not the correct address. For the afore-stated reasons, in our opinion, there is violation of principles of natural justice, because no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In the circumstances, the impugned assessment orders and demands raised in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. The Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the impugned orders, which have been quashed now, would be treated as show cause notices and the petitioner would file its reply to the said show cause notices within four weeks from today. After receipt of the reply, respondent No.1 shall give personal hearing to the petitioner – company so that a representative of the company can represent its case before respondent No.1 so as to enable respondent no.1 to pass fresh orders. In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute in both petitions. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29th January, 2009. ASP [1] 2007 (6) SCC 555