IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19638 of 2008 Between: M/s. M.N.C. Marketings, H.No. 6-29-21, Sudipenta, Srisailam, Kurnool District. Rep. by its Proprietor Sri M. Balaji. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Behind Central Plaza, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Kurnool - 518 002. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Nandyal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Revision Order, dated 15-02- 2007 passed by the Second Respondent revising the Final Assessment Order passed by the Third Respondent for the Assessment year 2004-2005 APGST as violativeof the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and illegal and set aside the same and consequently set aside the "Distraint Order", dated 23-08- 2008, in Form No.1, issued by the Third Respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19638 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per T HE HON’BLE MRS. JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking to have the order of the 2nd respondent dated 15.2.2007 and the consequent distraint order of the 3rd respondent dated 23.8.2008 issued in Form No.I, quashed, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is a proprietory concern and registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent carrying on business in soft drinks and water. The 3rd respondent passed ﬁnal assessment order dated 21.7.2005 for the assessment year 2004-05 arriving at the tax liability of Rs.17,530/- payable by the petitioner after granting set oﬀ of tax paid on the preceding point of sale. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent in exercise of his suo motu powers issued show cause notice proposing to revise the assessment order of the 3rd respondent on the ground that he has erroneously granted set off. Eventually the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 15.2.2007 resulting in issuance of the distraint order in Form No.1 dated 23.8.2008. Hence this writ petition. The main contention urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 15.2.2007 which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having heard the Learned Special G.P. for Commercial Taxes, we are of the opinion that the matter can be remanded back to the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of payment of Rs.35,000/- by the petitioner within six weeks from today. The petitioner is also at liberty to ﬁle his objections, if any, to the show cause notice, within six weeks. On such ﬁling, the matter shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Dated:08.09.2008 GS/ASP