IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY 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 : 14977 of 2009 Between: M/s. Agarwal Industries Private Limited, 15-9-449, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Naresh Gupta. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gowliguda Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer,(Int No. VIII), Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, Hyderabad. 5 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 6th respondent in initiating revisional proceedings invoking power under Section 20 and the proposal to levy tax treating the consignment transfers as inter-state sales relying on the alleged investigation reports without furnishing the same and with deciding the preliminary issued of jurisdiction as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction and declare that the 6th respondent has not authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the proposed revision as she lacks jurisdiction to invoke revisional powers once again as the final assessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner were already subjected to revision once by the Additional Commissioner and also on the ground of limitation since under the guise of revising the order of Additional Commissioner, the 6th respondent in effect wanted to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the 4th respondent herein which would be beyond the limitation of four years and also declare that the proposed action is violative of principles of natural justice since the 6th respondent failed to furnish the investigation reports which were the basis for the proposed revision to the petitioner till date in spite of repeated requests. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA (SPECIAL STNADING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES) The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by a show cause notice, the petitioner has approached this Court. The facts, in short, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are that the petitioner had raised an issue with regard to jurisdiction when a show cause notice was received by the petitioner. Respondent No.6 – the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes informed the petitioner that the issue with regard to jurisdiction shall also be considered along with the other issues. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforestated reply given by the authority because according to the petitioner the issue with regard to the jurisdiction should be decided first. In the course of hearing, learned Advocate has not pressed the aforestated issue, but has submitted that the petitioner should be given some more time so as to collect some more information for giving reply to the show cause notice. As the request appears to be reasonable, we direct that the petitioner should be given six weeks time for filing reply. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall file its reply within six weeks from today, i.e., on or before 07.09.2009. Respondent No.6 - Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is directed to consider the issue of jurisdiction along with other issues at the time of taking final decision, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case. In view of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ 27.7.2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J