THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 24833 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) The order of 3rd respondent dt. 31.12.2010 declining to grant stay in an application filed by the petitioner, pending the appeal before the STAT, is assailed in this writ petition. For the assessment year 2004-05 under the provisions of A.P.VAT Act, the 1st respondent determined tax on sale of gold coated jewellery at 12% as a residuary entry instead of under entry 146 of Schedule-I which deals with jewellery, gold coated or gold covered ornaments, by the final assessment order dt. 31.3.2008. The revisional authority/2nd respondent exercising jurisdiction under Section 22 of the VAT Act revised the assessment and brought the transaction to tax under the residuary entry holding that the goods do not constitute jewellery, gold coated or gold covered ornaments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal and moved the 3rd respondent for grant of stay pending determination of the appeal by the STAT. On 29.12.2010, the petitioner filed a letter before the 3rd respondent seeking adjournment of the case by a month on the ground of ill-health of his counsel. However, the 3rd respondent posted the case for hearing on 30.12.2010 i.e. on the next day and dismissed the application for grant of stay recording none appeared for hearing. This is the reason pleaded in the writ petition. The undue haste with which the 3rd respondent dealt with the application of the petitioner in the context of a letter having been filed on 29.12.2010 seeking adjournment of the case on the ground of ill-health of his counsel needs to be deprecated. In fact the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by a Circular dt. 4.5.2010 sensitised all the officers to follow principles of natural justice and afford at least 10 to 15 days time to each of the parties to file objections and for personal hearing. The Officers are also required to record the number of adjournments granted with dates and the orders passed thereon, to enable the Department to refute allegations of failure to provide natural justice. In any event, the 3rd respondent has not given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Normally in view of denial of fair opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, we would have been inclined to set aside the order and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for a fresh hearing. However, such a step may not be necessary since the application preferred by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent is only for grant of stay pending the appeal before the STAT. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is seen to have an arguable case in the appeal before the STAT and hence we are inclined to allow this writ petition granting stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the revisional order passed by the 2nd respondent dt. 18.6.2010, pending disposal of the appeal by the STAT. It is however made clear that none of the observations in this Judgement shall be considered as an expression by this Court on the merits of the claims of the petitioner pending consideration in the appeal before the STAT. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 06.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 24833 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 06.09.2011.