THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 17455 AND 17456 OF 2009 Dated: 02-09-2009 W.P.No. 17455 of 2009 Between: M/s India Link Limited, rep. by its Admn/Accts Asst. Mrs. B.Sailaja …Petitioner and The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Panjagutta, Hyderabad and another …Respondents. W.P.No. 17456 of 2009 Between M/s India Link Limited, rep. by its Admn/Accts Asst. Mrs. B.Sailaja …Petitioner and The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Panjagutta, Hyderabad and another …Respondents. COMMON ORDER: (Per RR, J) The order, impugned in these writ petitions, is the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Panjagutta, Hyderabad whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioner herein were rejected on the ground that the disputed assessment related to the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, that the appellant had kept quiet for nearly 5 years after expiry of the assessment year, and nearly one-and-half years after filing the appeals and that they had, so far, not produced any statutory forms/documentary evidence in support of their claim for concessional rate of tax/claim of exemptions. The appellate authority observed that the appeals could not be kept pending indefinitely and, in the absence of the required statutory forms/documentary evidence being produced, the appeals were liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions contending that they were not put on notice or given an opportunity of being heard before the impugned orders were passed by him. Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes submits that on three previous occasions also the notices were sent to the petitioner under Certificate of Posting, that the petitioner had appeared before the appellate authority and had requested that the appeals be adjourned, thereafter also the notices were sent to the petitioner under Certificate of Posting and, since they did not appear, the impugned orders were the result. He would however, concede that the Rules do not provide for issuance of notice under Certificate of Posting and that the prescribed mode of service of notice is only by Registered Post acknowledgment due. Even if it be accepted that the respondents had earlier sent notices to the petitioner under Certificate of Posting that would not absolve them to adhering to the prescribed mode of service of notice i.e., by Registered post Acknowledgement due. The impugned appellate order is, accordingly, set aside. Dr. A.M.Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that, since he is appearing on behalf of the petitioner, no further notice be issued to the petitioner and the order now passed would constitute notice to the petitioner. Since the assessment relate to the periods 2002-03 and 2003-04, we consider it appropriate to direct the appellate authority to hear the petitioner, give him an opportunity of producing all the relevant documentary evidence, including statutory declaration forms, on 8-9-2009 and, thereafter, dispose of the appeals in accordance with law. Both the writ petitions are disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 2nd September, 2009. Note: Furnish copy in two days /B.O/ GRR