IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 19807 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd (Since amalagamated with M/s Zurai Cement Ltd, Dondapadu, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Finance Mr Gopal K.Maheswari ... PETITIONER AND 1) The Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda 2) The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderbad Rural 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 writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order direction quashing the order of the 2nd respondent dt 22-8-2008 for the assessment year 2004-05 under the CST act as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and remand the matter to the 2nd respondent and direct him to consider the documentary evidence field by the petitioner on 25-8-2008 for fresh disposal of the appeal and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax of Rs 3,28,59,898 for the assessment year 2004-05 (CST). Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO, AGP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. Rule. 2. Service of Rule is waived by Mr.Singam Srinivasa Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. 3. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 4. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 22.8.2008 passed by respondent No.2 – appellate authority. 5. It has been mainly submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that certain documents which ought to have been perused by respondent No.2 were not perused by him and without giving any opportunity of producing the documents before respondent No.2, respondent No.2 had finally decided the appeal. It is his case that the appeal was heard on 22.8.2008. At that time, respondent No.2 ought to have called for the documents from the lower authority so as to ascertain certain factual aspects. Respondent No.2 neither called for the documents nor called upon the petitioner to produce the same and decided the appeal. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 25.8.2008, when the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2, the learned advocate was informed that the appeal had already been decided and thus he was prevented from placing on record certain documents, a perusal of which had affected the final outcome of the appeal. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that, in fact, on 25.8.2008, certain documents were placed on record of respondent No.2, but the same were not considered by respondent No.2. 8. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that, in fact, on 22.8.2008 itself the appeal had been finally heard and respondent No.2 had also passed an order on the same day. In the circumstances, there was no use of perusal of any material, which might have been placed by the petitioner on record on 25.8.2008. 9. Be that as it may, it appears that perusal of the documents referred to in the petition and which were placed on record before respondent No.2 by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner before respondent No.2 could have affected the final outcome of the appeal. 10. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.8.2008 passed by respondent No.2 so that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner for placing the relevant documents on record so that the same can be considered by respondent No.2 and the appeal can be decided after perusal thereof. 11. The learned advocates have agreed that the appeal can be heard by respondent No.2 on 29.6.2009. On that day, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner shall not pray for time and shall place on record of respondent No.2 the material on which he would like to rely upon. 12. It has been clarified by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner waives service of notice as the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in this Court will convey the afore-stated fact to the petitioner. 13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall also inform the date fixed for hearing of appeal to respondent No.2. 14. In view of the above directions and observations, the impugned order dated 22.8.2008 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ June 18, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Issue C.C. by 19.6.2009. (By order) svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}