IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.3497 of 2008 Between: M/s. Shaw Wallace & Company Limited, Secunderabad, Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Uday Gadkari. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar Circle, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commercial Tax, Secunderabad 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar Circle, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, dt. 23-9-2004, received by the petitioner on 30-7-2007, as illegal, void, inoperative, and accordingly, set aside the same and also the demand notice dated 16-1-2008 issued by 1st respondent to the extent of Rs. 14,18,228/-. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.CHAKRAPANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.3497 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, learned Special Government Pleader for Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner herein, who is the dealer in liquor and pesticides, files this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus assailing the order of the first respondent dated 23.09.2004, received by the petitioner on 30.07.2007, as illegal, void, inoperative and to set aside the demand notice dated 16.10.2008 issued by the first respondent to the extent of Rs.14,18,228/- (Rupees fourteen lakh eighteen thousand two hundred and twenty eight only). The facts, in brief, are that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment orders made by the first respondent for the year 1994-95 was partly allowed and remanded on 09.10.2000 in S/14/98- 99 and S/277/98-99 giving a deduction in respect of Rs.23,65,100/- (Rupees twenty three thousand sixty five thousand one hundred only) on the first item. Whereas in regard to second item to an extent of Rs.9,87,510/- (Rupees nine lakh eighty seven thousand five hundred and ten only), the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. However, as a sequence to the aforesaid order, for the first item deduction was given, with a seal to the very same order without taking into consideration the deduction as ordered by the appellate authority. Hence, the Writ Petition. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we notice that there is no dispute to the aforesaid chequered events, which led to filing of the present Writ Petition. The appellate authority has given benefit and order for deduction. However, on a reading of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 23.09.2004, we do not find any such credit given to both such items and instead he confirmed the earlier order, which, on the face of it, is illegal. In view of the same, the matter requires to be reconsidered afresh and pass appropriate orders in terms of the order of the appellate authority dated 09.10.2000. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders in conformity with the orders passed in the appeal dated 09.10.2000 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 1st May 2008 RRB