THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NO.27710 OF 2009 21-12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Circle Commecial Head V.Subrahmanyam ...Petitioner vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad and three others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NO.27710 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri S.Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitione and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, the learned Special Standing Counsel fo Commercial Taxes for the respondents. The writ petition is directed against the show cause notice issue by the 2nd respondent dated 23-09-2009 in purported exercise of power under Section 20(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act,1957 proposing to revise th order of assessment dated 18-09-2007 passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 2004-05; proposing to bring to tax Recharg Coupons/vouchers issued to a distributor, get start kits, and sale turnove on other products such as ring tones/games etc. The petitioner contends inter alia that in a batch of writ petition assailing the liability to tax either under the APGST Act, 1957 or th A.P.VAT Act, 2005 for transfer of Recharge coupons, this Court ha directed the Revenue not to take any coercive steps pursuant to an revisional order passed under the relevant portions of the A.P.GST Act o the A.P. VAT Act. Another contention urged is that the Sales Ta Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in its order dated 06.02.2008 i T.A.No.881/2007 had held that sale of Recharge coupons does no constitute a transaction exigible to tax under the A.P.GST Act ; that in th TRC preferred thereagainst this Court had not granted stay and therefor the 2nd respondent-revisional authority does not have jurisdiction t propose a revision on the grounds stated, in pursuance of which th impugned show cause was issued contrary to the principles declared b the STAT, though in another case. As what is impugned herein is a mere show cause notice, th petitioner is at liberty to urge all these contentions and other objections may wish to assert in response to the show cause notice. We find n patent lack of jurisdiction in the mere issuance of a show cause notice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admissio with liberty preserved to the petitioner to file objections to the impugne show cause notice dated 23-09-2009 within a period of three (3) week from today. Needless to state that the 2nd respondent i bound to record reasons while disposing of the objections if any lodged. I the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 21st DECEMBER 2009 Note. Issue CC As soon as possible (B/O) TSNR