THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17237 of 2010 Dated:17.08.2010 Between: Ch.Mallikarjuna Rao. …Petitioner and The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Vuda Building, Visakhapatnam, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17237 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a transport contractor. He entered into an agreement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) to transport bulk Bitumen to various destinations in Chennai as well as Visakhapatnam cities. Purportedly, for the reason that he is not leasing the vehicles to HPCL, he did not obtain registration with the concerned Commercial Tax Authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act). Be that as it is, the second respondent initiated action for determination of value added tax payable by the petitioner. Allegedly, after issuing notice in Form VAT 305A, dated 22.12.2009, the second respondent passed the impugned order in Form VAT 305 on 18.05.2010 demanding the payment of Rs.23,12,066/- as tax due. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is an effective alternative remedy available by way of an appeal to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner under Section 31 of the Act, but he contends that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar for us to entertain the writ petition on the ground that there is no adequate opportunity to him. He placed strong reliance on sub rule (5) of Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The statute, no doubt, provides that a reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the assessee before the taxing Officer determines the tax by applying the test “best of his judgment”. The Counsel, however, does not dispute that for the assessment year 2007-2008 the petitioner was given notice in Form 305A. This itself cannot lead to an inference that, prima facie, the petitioner has proved that there was no notice in respect of assessment for the year 2005-2006. We, however, hasten to add that this also is an issue which can be very well tackled by the appellate authority. The remedy under Article 226 is a discretionary remedy, which does not absolutely bar exercise by this Court, even if an alternative remedy is available. However, we are not inclined to exercise the discretion. The petitioner is given liberty to prefer an appeal to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, which shall be decided as per law. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 17.08.2010 vs