IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6543 OF 2009 Between: M/s. Moti Mahal Talkies, 6-2-9, Cinema Road, Sangareddy, Medak District, Rep. By its Prop. Smt. Geeta Devi Agarwal ..... PETITIONER AND Entertainment Tax Officer, Patancheru, Sangareddy, Medak District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) The petitioner assails dismissal of the appeal by order dated 22.9.2005 passed by the second respondent without issuing notice and hearing the petitioner and to consequently set aside the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the first respondent levying interest of Rs.33,019/- on delayed payment. The petitioner is carrying on the business of screening movies in her theatre, which is registered on the rolls of the first respondent under Entertainment Tax Act. It is her case that due to the reduction in payment of entertainment tax, there was an excess payment of Rs.95,939/- for the period from 9.7.1999 to 30.3.2000 and in terms of GO Ms. No. 376 dated 3.6.2000, she submitted an application seeking refund of the excess payment, which was not replied to by the first respondent, but in turn issued notice dated 27.9.2004 calling upon her to pay interest on delayed payment of weekly entertainment tax for the period from 18.4.2002 to 11.11.2004. The first respondent while brushing aside the contention of the petitioner that there is excess payment and if the said amount is given effect to, there cannot be any further levy of either interest or penalty, respondent has levied interest on the delayed payment of entertainment tax to the tune of Rs.33,019/- by order dated 20.11.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent by the order impugned in this writ petition has dismissed the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. The singular grievance of the petitioner herein is that before passing the order impugned, neither any notice was issued to her nor the second respondent has adverted to merits of the case. As can be noticed from the order impugned, it is observed by the second respondent that there is no representation inspite of issuance of number of hearing notices and that there is no evidence in the file to substantiate the contention that there is excess to the account of the petitioner and inspite of that interest is levied and, as such, the second respondent proceeded to dismiss the appeal. A perusal of the order shows that not only the appeal was dismissed in violation of principles of natural justice, but it is not supported by any convincing reasons. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside, remanding the matter back to the second respondent with a direction to dispose of the same afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao June 9, 2010 MAS