IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1709 of 2009 Between: M/s. S. Lalaiah & Co., H.No. 11-10-107, Vijayapuri Colony, R.K. Puram, Saroornagar, HYDERABAD, Ranga Reddy District, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. S. Krishnaiah. ...Petitioner And 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division, 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 proceedings dated 8-12-2008 for the assessment year 2003-04 under the APGST Act, as arbitrary, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and also in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule of Law and also contrary to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 19-4-2008 and consequently set aside the same as null and void and declare that the petitioner is liable to tax under Rule 6(3)(i) of APGST Rules. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha Counsel for the respondents : Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Rule. Service of notice is waived by the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 8th December, 2008 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar, respondent No.1 herein, on the ground that no personal hearing was given before passing the impugned order though a request was made for the same. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in Tirumala Milk Products Ltd. Kadiveda (V) v. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance and another[1] a n d S. Lalaiah & Co. v. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad and another[2], which have been to the effect that when a request is made for personal hearing, the authorities should give such personal hearing to the concerned person. He has submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the said order be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes has supported the order by submitting that, in fact, it was not necessary to give any personal hearing because respondent No.1 officer has decided the matter only after consideration of the relevant documents. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also considered the contents of the afore-stated two judgments, which laid down to the effect that when a personal hearing is prayed for, the authorities should grant the same. It is an admitted fact that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner though it has prayed for. Looking to the law laid down by this Court in the afore-stated two judgments, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The learned Advocates have agreed that respondent No.1 may decide the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner on 2nd March, 2009. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no separate notice for hearing is required and the representative of the petitioner shall represent before respondent No.1 peremptorily on 2nd March, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. so that the matter can be decided afresh after hearing him. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 18th February, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. To 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3. Two copies to the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4. Two CD copies. ARS [1] 41 (2005) APSTJ 6 [2] 45 (2007) APSTJ 116