IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY 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 : 21559 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Dall Products, Plot No.2A (Old.No.49),Industrial Estate,Narsaraopet,Rep.by its Proprietrix Smt.Sanisetti Anasuya, S/o.Venkata Siva Nageswara RAo, aged about 33 years,Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercia Tax officer,Bank STreet, Narsaraopet Guntur District 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Narsaraopet Division, Guntur District .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of mandmaus declaring the action on the part of the respondents in not issuing the requisite number of way bills as applieed for interms of the applications dated 26.8.2008 and 15.9.2008 accompanied by Demand draft No.805915 dated 26.8.2008 issued by STate Bank of India.,Narsaraopet as illegal, improper unfair,unjust contrary to the principles of natural justice as also violative of Rule 55(1) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules,2005 and violative of Articles, 14,and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to thejudgment of this Hon`ble court in 23 APSTJH 144 and thereby violating Article 227 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to issue the requisite number of waybills as sought for and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR 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 notice is waived by Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned Advocates have requested for final hearing of the petition today. The grievance, which has been ventilated in the petition is with regard to not supplying way bills to the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in spite of the request made for supply of way bills, the respondent- authorities have not furnished way bills and because of the said fact, business of the petitioner is adversely affected. In reply to the aforestated submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it has been submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent- authorities, which has been supported by a counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, that in pursuance of an inspection it had been found that the petitioner was actually not doing any business and, therefore, a show cause notice dated 19-08-2008 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why registration certificate issued to the petitioner be not cancelled. It has been further submitted on behalf of the respondents that as no reply was given to the aforestated notice, another notice dated 18.10.2008 was given to the petitioner which was served upon the petitioner on 23.10.2008. In spite of the above fact, no reply was given by the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent-authorities are considering whether the registration certificate issued to the petitioner should be cancelled. At this juncture, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that reply to the show cause notice had already been given. Possibly, the reply given by the petitioner might not have been received by the respondent-authorities and, therefore, one additional copy of the reply has been handed over by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner to the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, it has been decided by respondent No.1 to give personal hearing to the petitioner. In pursuance of instructions received by the learned Advocates it has been decided that the petitioner or her representative shall attend the office of respondent No.1 on 29.01.2009 at 11.00 AM even if no notice to that effect is served upon the petitioner, because notice has been waived by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner or her representative, final decision on the subject of cancellation of the registration or otherwise shall be taken and the result thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from 29.01.2009. If the registration is not cancelled, the respondent-authorities shall do the needful for furnishing way bills to the petitioner and, if the registration is cancelled, the question with regard to supply of way bills would not arise. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 20th January, 2009 CVRK/GRR