IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE 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 : 10465 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sri Srinivasa Ready Mix Concrete Private Ltd., D.No. Rs.No.74/1, Nidamanuru, Atkur Mandal, Krishna District, A.P., Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Nimmagadda Srinivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND Assistant Commissioner (CT) [Audit], Office of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), No. II Division, Vijayawada, D.No. 74-15-1, Yenamalakuduru Road, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Order of Assessment of Value Added Tax in Form VAT 305, dated 25.04.2009 passed by the Respondent for the period 01-04-2008 to 31-10-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, without basis, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the directions contained in the remand order of the Appellate Authority, and consequentially set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. G. NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel, for the respondent. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the order dt.25.4.2009 passed by the respondent in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), dt.18.3.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of the remand order dt.18.3.2009, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, the case of the petitioner had been remanded so that it can be heard afresh by the respondent - Assistant Commissioner (CT), Audit. While remanding the matter, it was specifically observed in the order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner that “the assessing authority to call for the presence of the dealer along with their books of account and verify them thoroughly and quantify the suppressed turnover by recording a statement for verification from the authorized person of the firm and then pass order afresh within one month”. It is also the case of the petitioner that in spite of the above direction given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), the respondent did not issue any notice calling upon the petitioner to produce the books of account and other material for verification. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that though in the impugned order passed by the respondent it has been stated that a notice was issued to the petitioner, in fact, no notice had been issued to the petitioner. For the afore-stated reason, it has been submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as it was passed without verification of the books of account and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the books of account and other material as directed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. In view of the above submission, we had called upon the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent to show a copy of the notice, which was statedly issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the order dt.18.3.2009 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. Learned Standing Counsel, upon perusal of the record, fairly submitted that he could not find a copy of the notice, which has been referred to in the impugned order. The afore-stated facts clearly denote that no notice was given to the petitioner to produce the books of account and other material, which were required to be verified by the respondent. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the books of account and other material for verification of the respondent. For the afore-stated reason, we feel that the impugned order is bad in law and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondent to pass an order afresh after giving requisite notice to the petitioner so that the necessary record can be produced before the respondent. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17.6.2009