IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL 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.9479 of 2008 Between: M/s Sri Radhakrishna Transport, Door No.69-30-2, Gandhipuram, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry-533 106. East Godavari District, rep by its Managing Partner M.Vijay Kumar, S/o. M.Radhakrishna Murthy, aged 33 years. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Aryapuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), (FAC) Visakhapatnam. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ of Order or Direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the appeal by proceedings, dated 26.03.2008 for the assessment year 2002-03 by constructing the date representation of appeal as date of presentation, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and also in violative of principles of natural justice and direct the 2nd respondent to entertain and dispose off the appeal on merits by setting aside the order dt.26.03.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR 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.9479 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for Tax for the respondents. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the reacceptance of the appeal, which has been presented before the appellate authority after the same has been duly presented after compliance of the objection raised at the initial stage. The case of the petitioner is that after the appeal is filed, the office rejected the same stating that the condition required is not complied. Subsequently, the said objection has been complied with. Even though it was represented, the appellate authority rejected the same, as it is not valid. Hence, the Writ Petition. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since there is sufficient compliance in regard to the condition required as contemplated under the law, it would certainly amount to due compliance and hence, the appeal can as well be processed and disposed of on merits. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 26.03.2008 and directing the appellate authority-the second respondent to take up the appeal on merits and dispose of in accordance with law. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 28th April 2008 Note: CC by two days B/O RRB