IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE 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 : 10304 of 2009 Between: M/s. Shoba Sarees Rep. by its Proprietrix, Smt. T. Vadami Devi D.No. 40-321-4-4-A-4 & 5, Abdulla Khan Estate, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Kurnool - I Circle Kurnool Division, Kurnool. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring; (a) The action of the 1st respondent in passing the assessment proceedings dated 16-04- 2009 for the period August, 2005 to March, 2008 without even giving sufficient opportunity of being heard is in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law; (b) the action of the 1st respondent in passing the proceedings dated 16-04-2009 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 28-02-2009 and contrary to Entry 21 and 49 of the I Schedule of the A.P. VAT Act and more particularly amended Entry 52 of the IV Schedule of the A.P. VAT Act wherein the Entry 52, the words " and all other made ups" shall be omitted, and also the said proceedings of the 1st respondent may be set aside as arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the Act and Government Order and also it is null and void; (c) the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 16- 04-2009 is contrary to Section 2(36) of the A.P. VAT Act which states that "Tax period" means a calendar month or any other period as may be prescribed. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES Counsel for the respondent No.2: G.P. FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents. At the request of learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dt.16.4.2009 passed by respondent No.1. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that without giving sufficient opportunity to represent its case, respondent No.1 had passed the impugned order. So as to substantiate his case, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was given a show cause notice before passing the impugned order. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner had made a request vide his letter dt.20.3.2009 to grant one month’s time to file its reply. According to the case of the petitioner, in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, respondent No.1 had granted one month’s time to file reply. Before completion of one month and before filing a reply by the petitioner, the impugned order dt.16.4.2009 was passed by respondent No.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a statement made in the impugned order, which is as under: “Having received the notice the dealer filed a letter Dt.20.3.2009 requesting time for one month to file reply and produce the books and other records. But the dealer failed to file their objections to the notice even though the time i.e., one month asked by them has been expired. Hence there is no other way except to finalize the case basing on the material available on assessment records and passed orders confirming the tax proposed in the notice.” The contents of the above paragraph clearly denote that on 20.3.2009 the petitioner was granted one month’s time to file its reply and the impugned order was passed on 16.4.2009 even before completion of one month’s time. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, it is clear that respondent No.1, though had granted time for one month to file reply, without waiting for one month to enable the petitioner to file reply, passed the impugned order. Aforestated fact could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Aforestated facts clearly denote that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to put its case before respondent No.1. In the circumstances, the impugned order dt.16.4.2009 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. At the time of hearing of the petition, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would file its reply within two weeks from today and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner’s representative would be given personal hearing on 18.6.2009 at 11.00 a.m. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has waived notice of said hearing so as to enable the petitioner’s representative to represent petitioner’s case on 18.6.2009 before respondent No.1. Needless to say that, after hearing the representative of the petitioner and after considering the contents of the reply/objections, which would be filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 03-06-2009 bnr