IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3864 of 2009 Between: M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Rep. by its Manager - Finance, Mr. A.R.V. Badrinath 3-6-438, 3rd Floor, Naspur House, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Secunderabad Division Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division 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 Mandamus or any othe appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the notice of the 1st Respondent in insisting for payment of the balance disputed tax of Rs.1,58,89,222/- pursuant to dismissal of appeal by the 2nd Respondent by order dated 18-11-2008 and restrain 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.1,58,89,222/- and of the total disputed tax of Rs.3,17,78,443/- for the tax period April 2005 to September 2007, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri Krishna Kaundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 18- 11-2008 passed by the 2nd respondent. 3. The main grievance, which has been ventilated in the petition is that incorrect facts have been stated in the order to the effect that nobody had appeared for hearing before the appellate authority i.e., before the 2nd respondent. But in fact, the learned Advocate had appeared for the petitioner before the appellate authority. The petitioner has drawn our attention to a copy of letter dated 9-1-2009 which was addressed by the learned Advocate to respondent No.2 stating the fact that in fact, the concerned lawyer had appeared before the 2nd respondent, but due to oversight it has been stated in the impugned order that the petitioner was not represented by any Advocate and, therefore, the order was passed ex parte. 4. We have heard the learned Advocates and have perused the material papers supporting the affidavit. 5. There is a letter dated 9-1-2009 addressed to the 2nd respondent stating the fact that an Advocate had represented the case of the petitioner and there is no counter-affidavit rebutting the said statement. 6. In the circumstances, looking to the facts of the case, we see no reason to disbelieve the learned Advocate who had addressed letter dated 9-1-2009 to respondent No.2. 7. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, we quash the impugned order so that the 2nd respondent can hear the appeal afresh. The impugned order is accordingly quashed directing the 2nd respondent to hear the appeal afresh and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner or its representative. 8. The learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the 2nd respondent shall hear the appeal on 24-3-2009 at 11.00 a.m and the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner waives service of notice for the said hearing. The 2nd respondent need not issue fresh notice fixing hearing of the appeal on 24-3-2009. 9. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. 10. No coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount in question till the appeal is finally disposed of. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 3rd March, 2009. Note: Issue copy in three days. /B.O/ GRR