THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.8005 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. The order under challenge is the endorsement dated 29.12.2008, passed on an application filed by the petitioner under Rule 50 of the APGST Rules {“the Rules” for brevity} seeking rectification of a mistake in the assessment order. In the assessment order dated 20.11.2007, the assessing authority notes that the petitioner had filed purchase details covering a purchase turnover of Rs.53,96,012/-; on scrutiny it was found that the registration numbers relating to the purchase turnover of Rs.10,21,389/- were not mentioned; the same was proposed to tax under Section 6A of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act {“the Act” for brevity}; and tax at 12% was proposed to be levied thereon as the dealer had failed to file details thereof on of the nature of these purchases. It is evident that the assessing authority was satisfied that the purchase turnover of Rs.10,21,389/- alone was required to be taxed under Section 6A of the Act. However, the entire turnover of Rs.53,96,012/- was taxed at 12%. Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, Learned counsel for the petitioner, would assert that this is a clerical mistake in the order of assessment necessitating rectification; despite the petitioner having filed an application seeking rectification and had asked for a personal hearing, the assessing authority had failed to provide him with such an opportunity. Rule 50 of the Rules enables the assessing authority to rectify a clerical or arithmetic mistake apparent from the record. Prima facie, the error aforementioned falls within the scope of Rule 50 of the Rules. Since, however, the petitioner was denied the opportunity of personal hearing, despite a specific request in this regard, we do not propose to examine the merits of the contentions urged before us. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the order under challenge and remand the matter back to the assessing authority for his consideration afresh. The assessing authority shall, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, pass orders afresh on the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 50 of the Rules. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of two {2} months from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 23rd June 2010 RRB