IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH 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 : 6064 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sagarika Sea Crafts Limited, Flat No.102, Swagruha Coral Apartments, R.K. Beach Road, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Managing Director, Sri Brig S.K. Aggarwal. ..... PETITIONER AND Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I, Enforcement Wing, O/o. The Commissioner (CT), Nampally, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records and quash the impugned assessment order in Form VAT 305 issued by the first respondent dated 18.02.2009 for the Tax Periods from April, 2006 to March, 2007 under the APVAT Act in seeking to levy tax under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act, 2005. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: G.P. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of notice is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 3. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged notice dt.18.2.2009 issued by the respondent whereupon the petitioner has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.35,18,728/- as the petitioner had given its vessels/trawlers on hire to various companies and had received hire charges. On hire charges received by the petitioner, tax has been determined by the respondent, which has been demanded as per the impugned notice. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent its case before the respondent, who has taken final decision, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to make payment of the aforesaid amount. 5. The petitioner has drawn our attention to chronological events stated in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit supporting the petition. Upon perusal of the said chronological events, it appears that on 19.1.2009, the petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 5.1.2009 to file its objections within a period of ten days. As the period given to the petitioner for filing the objections was not sufficient, upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner had made a request for grant of at least thirty days for filing objections under its letter dt.28.1.2009. The said letter was received by the respondent on 30.1.2009. The respondent did not grant time as prayed for, but granted time upto 5.2.2009 and despatched the communication, which was received by the petitioner on 7.2.2009. Upon receipt of the communication from the respondent, the petitioner once again wrote a letter on 7.2.2009 asking for further time upto 20.2.2009 so as to enable the petitioner to engage a Consultant. In pursuance of the above request, on 9.2.2009, time upto 16.2.2009 was granted by the respondent, but the communication to that effect was despatched on 13.2.2009, which was received by the petitioner on 17.2.2009. On 11.2.2009 the petitioner engaged an Advocate, whose Vakalat was filed on the same day and the respondent was requested to grant three weeks time for filing objections and in fact the objections were filed and same were received by the respondent on 20.2.2009. 6. Before considering the objections or before hearing the concerned Advocate for the petitioner, the respondent took a final decision on 18.2.2009, which was communicated to the petitioner on 21.2.2009. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the aforestated facts clearly denote that there was undue haste on the part of the respondent. The petitioner could have been given reasonable time at the first instance so as to prepare and file its objections and engage an Advocate so that the petitioner could have been duly represented before the respondent. It has been submitted that by not giving sufficient time, the right of the petitioner to represent its case has been adversely affected. It has, therefore, been pleaded that the impugned notice be quashed and set aside and some time be granted to the petitioner so that the petitioner’s Advocate can represent its case before the respondent. The learned Advocate has further assured that the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would not ask for further time, if an opportunity is given and date is fixed even today. 8. Looking to the chronological events stated herein above, which have been reproduced from paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that sufficient time was not given to the petitioner and it would have been better if sufficient time was granted to the petitioner at the first instance. 9. Looking to the facts of the case, especially in view of the fact that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to prepare its objections and engage an Advocate, we quash the impugned order dt.18.2.2009. 10. It has been agreed upon among the Advocates that the petitioner’s Advocate would be present before the respondent on 2.4.2009 at 11.00 a.m. to represent its case and on that day he would not pray for time so that the respondent can hear the petitioner and consider the objections already filed and can take a final decision in accordance with law. 11. It is clarified that no separate notice fixing the date of hearing would be served upon the petitioner as the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner waived service of notice. 12. In view of the above order, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside, with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 24th March, 2009 bnr