THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.9816 & 9781 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: ( Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Both the writ petitions are filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Kurnool in passing the impugned order dated 22-12-2009 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 under the APGST Act ex parte on the ground of non- prosecution without verifying whether notices of hearing were served on the petitioner or not as illegal and arbitrary. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is in the business of running a cold storage. For the assessment years 2003-2004 & 2004-2005, the petitioner has filed its monthly returns in Form A-2 reporting Nil turnovers. While so, 1st respondent-The Commercial Tax Officer issued notices dated 8-10- 2007 & 29-01-2007 proposing to assess the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to respond to the said notices, 1st respondent passed orders confirming the levy through his proceedings dated 25-04-2008 & 31-03-2007 on the premise that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice. Challenging the assessment orders, the petitioner filed appeals. On 19-08-2009 the petitioner was asked to appear for hearing before the 2nd respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Due to fracture on leg, the petitioner was hospitalized and underwent series of operations, he failed to attend for hearing. While so, on 22-12-2009, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeals on the ground that in spite of sending notices the petitioner did not appear for hearing of appeals. In view of the ex parte orders of the 2nd respondent dismissing the appeals, 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed tax and is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed demands. Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner was seriously ill and hospitalized and subsequently died. Hence, he failed to look after the business and could not pay the tax within the stipulated time. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, We are of the opinion that the matters can be remanded to the 1st respondent on condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards both the impugned notices by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. With the above direction, the matters are disposed of. ____________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO rkk/kvrk Dated: 27-04-2010