THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19103 of 2011 Dated:13.07.2011 Between: M/s.Kakarania Plastometal Pvt.Ltd. … Petitio And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19103 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, an incorporated company, is engaged in manufacturing of electrical goods. They are dealers on the rolls of the t respondent. For the years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 the assessments w completed. However, acting on the authorization issued by the jurisdictio Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, the second respondent audited books of accounts of the petitioner. On an allegation that the petitioner under-declared the turnover, the second respondent proposed to undert assessment and, accordingly, issued show cause notice dated 23.04.20 After receiving the show cause notice the petitioner submitted their reply 26.05.2011 raising various objections. They sought time of four weeks as a for a personal hearing. It is their case that their Chartered Accountant was aw at Chennai attending his sick son and, therefore, on 26.05.2011 representative of the petitioner had appeared and sought time. However second respondent enquired with the person and seemingly completed formality of personal hearing. The petitioner, therefore, submitted ano representation on 31.05.2011 requesting time for personal hearing so that Chartered Accountant could appear and explain the various proposals raise the show cause notice. The petitioner alleges that the second respond granted time upto 14.06.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner’s Charte Accountant came with the records but, by then, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 09.06.2011 completing assessment pursuan the audit. The petitioner would contend that the assessment undertaken by second respondent pursuant to audit is unauthorized as authorization for a does not amount to authorization to undertake assessment. It is ne contended that they were orally informed that the matter will be heard 14.06.2011. Even before that the impugned order was passed on 09.06.201 The matter was listed before us yesterday. We directed the Spe Counsel to get instructions from the second respondent on the limited ques with reference to the allegation raised by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of affidavit to the effect that the second respondent had granted time till 14.06.2 for production of the records, and affording a personal hearing. Today B.Venkatadri, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes on instructions fa submits that he cannot seriously traverse the allegation in paragraph 5 of writ affidavit. Further, as rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner, impugned order is an ex parte order as evidenced by the order da 15.06.2011 whereby and whereunder the second respondent reduced penalty from 100% to 10%. The said document clearly shows that impugned order was passed ex parte. On this limited ground, we are incline interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of setting aside impugned order. The matter shall go back to the second respondent. We di the petitioner to appear before the second respondent on 20.07.2011 with waiting for any further formal notice and produce the records, when the sec respondent shall afford a personal hearing and pass appropriate ord pursuant to the show cause notice already issued. There shall be no orde to costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 13.07.2011 vs