THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI And THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G ROHINI Writ Petition No. 935 of 2008 Dated: 23-01-2008 Between M/s. Kavutaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Kavutaram, Krishna District Rep.by its Secretary, Mr N. Sambasiva Rao. ..Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. And 2 others Respondents THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI And THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G ROHINI Writ Petition No. 935 of 2008 ORDER ( per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T Meena Kumari) : 01. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A(AR) No.783 of 2003, dated 12.3.2007 as unreasonable, unjustified and to direct the 3rd respondent to register the appeal on complying with the defects pointed out in the notice in Form-A. 2. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the AP Co-operative Societies Act and carrying on business in purchase and sale of sugar, rice, fertilizers and tamarind and catering to the needs of the ryots who are the members of the Petitioner society. It is also averred that for the year 1999-2000 the first respondent passed orders dated 27.11.2000 allowing the exemptions claimed by the petitioner on the 2nd sale turnover of tamarind worth Rs.17,71,425/-. While so, the 1st respondent through the proceedings dated 16.3.2002 passed reassessment order. Challenging the reassessment order of the 1st respondent dt. 16.3.2002, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent but the same was dismissed through the order-dated 21.2.2003. It is further averred that challenging the order dt. 21.2.2003 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 21 of the APGST Act on 16.5.2003 and it was registered as A.R.No. 783 of 2003. It is further averred that in view of certain technical defects in the appeal, the STAT issued notice in Form-A, dated 5.8.2003 to the petitioner to rectify the defects. Thereafter after constitution of Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam, the appeal filed by the petitioner was transferred to the said Court and the petitioner received fresh hearing notice dated 30.10.2006, but the same was served on the advocate’s clerk of the petitioner on 6.11.2006 who left the place to attend some urgent work and as such the petitioner had no knowledge about the hearing of the matter, resulting in to the rejection of the admission of appeal by the Appellate Authority (STAT) by its order dated 12.3.2007. The said order was received by the petitioner on 14.5.2007. It is further averred in the affidavit that the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that pursuing the appeal is not necessary in view of the fact that the Government had waived the corresponding penalty pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner by issuing G,.O.Rt.No. 2213 dated 21.11.2005 and as such he did not take effective steps to have the appeal restored by curing the defects. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent visited the premises of the petitioner and is insisting for payment of balance tax and in that connection the petitioner came to know the above facts. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes. 4. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and after having heard the learned Special Standing Counsel, we feel it necessary to remand the matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (R-3) for fresh disposal by giving two weeks time to the petitioner herein to comply with the objections raised by the 3rd respondent. 5. Thus, the writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned order dated 12.3.2007 of the 3rd respondent and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh disposal. It is made clear that the petitioner herein shall comply with the objections raised by the 3rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the order impugned will become operative. 6. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No Costs. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ____________ G ROHINI J Dt. 23.1.2008 kvrk THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI And THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G ROHINI Writ Petition No. 935 of 2008 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T Meena Kumari) Dated: 23-01-2008 With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ____________ G ROHINI J