IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19108 of 2008 Between: M/s. Orient Cement, Devapur, Adilabad District, Rep by its Manager(Accounts), Mr. P.K. Bhomia ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Adilabad Division, Adilabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warangal Division, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent in I.No. 60 No. 59/2004-5 dated 24-8-2005 served on the petitioner on 24-4-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and passed in violation of principles of natural justice and direct the 2nd respondent to admit the appeal and adjudicate the matter on merits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.19108 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per T HE HON’BLE MRS. JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 24.8.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to admit the appeal and adjudicate the matter on merits, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is a dealer carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cement having registered on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2001-02 aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected to entertain the appeal on the ground that the petitioner has failed to ﬁle proof of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax and the admitted tax. Hence the writ petition. The main contention urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the material with respect to payment of the tax has already been submitted, the 2nd respondent – appellate authority, without considering the same passed the impugned order, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having heard the Learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not reﬂect the factum of the 2nd respondent having considered the material submitted by the petitioner. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to remand the mater back to the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh after taking into consideration the material ﬁled by the petitioner herein and after aﬀording an opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. Date:10-9-2008 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. asp/gs