THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10480 of 2010 Dated 21st February, 2011 Between: M/s.GTN Industries Limited …Petitioner And The Agriculture Market Committee, Sadashivapet, rep.by its Secretary, Sadashivpet, Medak and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Chavali Ramanad Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri K.Upendar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Agriculture The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside assessment order No.AMC/S/47/2006-07/381/382, dated 30.03.2010, passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Upendar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1. The petitioner is involved in manufacture and export of textiles, yarn, garments etc., and running multi locational spinning units in Andhra Pradesh and Maharastra. The dispute in the present case pertains to spinning factory of cotton yarn situated at Chitkul, Medak District. With reference to the transactions taken place pertaining to sale and purchase of cotton for the year 2006-07, respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice, dated 18.03.2010. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner and not controverted by the respondents that the show-cause notice was served on the petitioner on 22.03.2010. In the show-cause notice, the petitioner was granted seven days’ time for submitting its objections against the proposed assessment. On 30.03.2010, assessment order was passed for a total sum of Rs.70,06,905/-, comprising Rs.23,35,635/- towards market fee and Rs.46,71,270/- towards penalty. This order is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from serious violation of Principles of Natural justice. He has stated that as the show-cause notice was served on his client on 22.03.2010, it was prepared to submit its objections after collecting material and that just on the expiry of the seventh day, respondent No.1 has passed assessment order with a predetermined mind. The learned Standing Counsel opposing this contention submitted that respondent No.1 has complied with the Principles of Natural justice by waiting for expiry of seven days from the date of issuing notice to the petitioner and that on the eighth day, the assessment order was passed. While admitting this writ petition, this Court granted interim stay to the extent of recovery of penalty component only. The application for vacating the said order was filed by respondent No.1 inter alia on the ground that the condition in the interim order was not complied with and that the petitioner has not paid any amount. This Court on 01.02.2011 adjourned the case at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to instruct his client to deposit at least 50% of the principal liability. Accordingly, the case was adjourned and on 14.02.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner reported to the Court that his client has deposited half of the principal liability. Today, at the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel has admitted the fact of such deposit. The short question that needs to be addressed in this writ petition is whether the impugned order suffers from violation of Principles of Natural justice. Even taking the facts pleaded by the petitioner on their face value, it appears, the impugned assessment order was passed immediately on the expiry of seven days’ time given to the petitioner from the date of issue of show-cause notice. Therefore, in strict sense, it cannot be said that the order was passed in violation of the Principles of Natural justice. But, at the same time, it needs to be noted that for submitting proper explanation with reference to the transactions that have taken place three years preceding the date of show-cause notice, the petitioner certainly requires reasonable time for collecting relevant documents and giving effective explanation. As such, in my opinion, granting seven days’ time for submitting explanation may not be adequate. After all, the petitioner deserves reasonable time to put forth its case in an effective manner with reference to the relevant documents. Viewed from this angle, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 ought to have been more considerate and liberal in granting reasonable time for submitting explanation by the petitioner. On a careful consideration of the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be served, if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to put forth its case by submitting its explanation along with relevant documents to the show-cause notice, dated 18.03.2010. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file its objections, along with relevant documents, within a period of three weeks from today. On the expiry of the time stipulated above, respondent No.1 shall be free to pass a fresh order of assessment. The amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court shall be allowed to be retained by respondent No.1 till an appropriate assessment order is passed and the same shall be subject to the assessment order that may be passed by respondent No.1 afresh. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 30.04.2010, granted by this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.13435 of 2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.13435 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.361 of 2010 are disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st February, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB