IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6825 of 2009 Between: M/s Dhanalaxmi Roto Spinners Limited, 15-9-56, Inani House, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad-500 012 Rep by its Director, Mr. Naryan Inani. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Maharaj Gunj Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad. .....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 Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the final assessment order, dated 24-12-2008 for the assessment year 2005-2006 under the Central Sales Tax Act, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard though the petitioner sought for time and rejecting statutory declarations in C/E1 Forms submitted by the petitioner subsequent to the assessment, as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law and set aside the same as null and void and declare that the declarations filed by the petitioner may be considered as per Rule 12 (7) of CST (R & T) Rules even after completion of assessment and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the letter and applications of the petitioner dated 05.01.2009, 27-01- 2009 and 03.03.2009 in the interest of justice following the decision of this Hon'ble Court in 7 VST 730. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J) Rule. Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the assessment order dt.24.12.2008 passed under Central Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 2005-2006, as violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner would contend that sufficient opportunity of being heard had not been afforded and that adequate time to submit statutory declarations and forms was also not given. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that the practice being adopted by them was to collect all statutory forms and submit them in one lot instead of submitting them piecemeal, that, for the assessment year 2005-2006, they had already procured ‘C’ forms for Rs.1,48,29,559/- and Rs.54,65,982/- and that in all ‘C’ forms available with them were for Rs.2,02,95,541/-. The petitioner would submit that they had submitted an application to the Commercial Tax Officer on 5.1.2009 enclosing the C and E1 forms and seeking further six months time to submit the remaining forms. While the date mentioned in the said letter dt.5.1.2009 seems to have been corrected, the respondents have affixed their seal along with the signature of the official concerned as token of their having received the said letter. On being asked, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, who is present in Court, submits that it is indeed the signature of his predecessor and that his predecessor had acknowledged receipt of the said letter dt.5.1.2009. The petitioner has specifically stated that, while the assessment order is dated 24.12.2008, it was actually served on them only on 19.1.2009. According to the Learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessment order was antedated only to deny the petitioner reasonable opportunity of submitting C and E1 forms. We do not, however, propose to go into the question whether the assessment order was antedated as we are satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reasonable opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner including time to submit the statutory declarations in C and E1 forms, more so, as it is not even the case of the respondents that the assessment is likely to be time barred shortly. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order is set aside. The petitioner shall be put on notice, given an opportunity of being heard and to submit the statutory declarations inn C and E1 forms. The assessing authority shall, thereafter, pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29-04-2009 bnr/asp