IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10932 of 2008 Between: M/s S.K.Swamy & Company, 1-496(3), HMT Lay out, Penugonda,Ananthapur District, Rep by its Partner Mr.K.Palanivelu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Ananthapur. 2 Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order direction calling for the records of the proceedings of the 1st Respondents dt.16.12.2006 vide G.I.No.9622/01-02 and quash the same as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and also in violation of principles of natural justice as the respondent has not considered the objections of the petitioners dt.5-7-2006 and 14.12.2006 and having served the revision proceedings on 9-7-2007 without any explanation for delay in service amounts to bad in law and barred by limitation and consequently set-aside the same as null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents.: SPL.STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10932 of 2008 ORDER: ( Per the Honourable Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dt.16.12.2006 vide G.I.No.9622/01-02. The main grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and that the objections filed by the petitioner on 5.7.2006 and 14.12.2006 were not considered properly and therefore, the action of the respondent in passing the order impugned would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the objections have not been considered on the ground that they were filed belatedly. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that on 11.6.2008, while ordering notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of eight weeks. It was made clear that in default, the interim stay stands vacated. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the interim order has been complied with. In view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel and in view of the above circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein an opportunity can be afforded to the petitioner to file its objections, so that the matter can be remanded for fresh consideration by setting aside the order impugned. Accordingly, the order impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent to consider afresh, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari ____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Dated: 06.08.2008 Nn/gurc. HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10932 of 2008 (ORDER of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) 6TH August, 2008