IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH 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 : 5215 of 2008 Between: M/s. Vishnutek Engineers Private Limited, Rep. by its Director- operations, Mr.Y.Sriram Chandra Mouli Plot No.15, D Block Expansion, Auto nagar, visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner ( CT ) LTU, Visakghapatnam Division Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the Respondent dated 22.1.2008 for the tax period 2005-06 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unreasonable and consequently direct the respondent to pass assessment orders afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file its opjections and avail personal hearing and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH 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 : 5218 of 2008 Between: M/s Vishnutek Engineers Private Limited, Plot NO.15, D Block Expansion, Autonagar, Visakhapatnam, rep. by Director - Operations, Mr. Y. Sriram Chandra Mouli. ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the Respondent dated 22.01.2008 for the tax period 2007-08 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unreasonable and consequently direct the Respondent to pass assessment orders afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file its objections and avail personal hearing and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH 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 : 5223 of 2008 Between: M/s. Vishnutek Engineer Private Limited, rep. by Director-Operations, Mr.Y. Sriram Chandra Mouli, Polt No.15, D Block Expansion, Autonagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner ( CT ) LTU, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing theorder of the respondent dated 22.1.2008 for the tax period 2006-07 as illegal, arbitrary unjustified and unreasonble and consequently direct the respondent to pass assessment orders afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file its objections and avail personal hearing and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: 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 Nos.5215, 5218 and 5223 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent and at their request, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. It is the case of the petitioner that three show cause notices have been issued by the respondent on 17-01-2008 in respect of three different assessment orders, which have been received on 18-01-2008, giving him three days time to submit his explanation. On receiving the said notices, the petitioner filed an application on 21-01-2008 seeking further period of one week for the purpose of filing his explanation. Instead of passing any order or summoning the petitioner, the respondent passed the impugned orders on 22-01-2008 and, therefore, the said action of the respondent is wholly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petitions. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in fact the contents of the alleged show cause notices, dated 17-01-2008 are part of the show-cause notices, which have been issued much earlier on 15-11-2007 itself, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact the earlier notices were not pressed and revised show-cause notices have been issued on 17- 01-2008 and, therefore, necessary opportunity has to be given. Having heard the counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, and having regard to the fact that very grant of three days time for filing explanation in respect of the show-cause notices, dated 17-01- 2008, which were received on 18-01-2008, is not sufficient and the petitioner would have been given further more time to submit his explanation. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this court in W.P.No.27049 of 2005, dated 26-12-2005 and W.P.No.15270 of 2005, dated 20-07-2005, held that in respect of any application seeking extension of time, the concerned authority has to pass necessary orders granting time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the orders impugned. However, we direct that the impugned orders should be treated as show-cause notices and the petitioner may file his reply/explanation within a period of two weeks from today, and thereafter the respondent shall hear him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 18-03-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}