WP/25987/2005 of M/s Dadus Mithao Vatika Vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 27 December 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARand

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.APPA RAO

W.P.NOs.25987 OF 2005 AND 8355OF 2006

THDated: 27 December 2006.

W.P.NO.25987 OF 2005

Between:M/S. Dadu’s Mithai Vatika, Diamond House, LibertyRoad, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.

AND

..... PETITIONER

The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circle,Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENT

W.P.NO.8355 OF 2006

Between:M/S. Dadu’s Mithai Vatika, Diamond House, LibertyRoad, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.

AND

..... PETITIONER

The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circle,Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENT

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO

W.P.NOs.25987 OF 2005 AND 8355 OF 2006

ORAL COMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J.Chelameswar)

The petitioner is the same in these two writpetitions. Aggrieved by two re-assessment orders dated 28-10-2005 and 28-02-2006, which are passed basingupon the information furnished by the Income TaxDepartment, present writ petitions are filed.

It appears that there was an inspection of thebusiness premises of the petitioner by the Income TaxDepartment on 31-10-2002. Based on the materialcollected at the time of inspection, the Income TaxDepartment came to the conclusion that there was aviolation of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner andappropriate proceeding under the Income Tax Act, wereinitiated. Having come to know the proceedings underthe Income Tax Act, the respondents herein also chose tomake re-assessment of the liability of the petitioner under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, for the abovementioned assessmentyears by the impugned re-assessment orders.

It may not be necessary for this Court to go into thefactual details of the said assessments, since the onlysubmission made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the entire material relied upon by therespondents for making the impugned re-assessmentorders, is not supplied to the petitioner before makingsuch re-assessments and therefore, there is a failure ofthe principles of natural justice in passing the impugnedorders in these two writ petitions.

Heard the leaned Government Pleader forCommercial Tax.

Admittedly, some of the material relied upon by therespondents for passing the impugned re-assessmentorders, was not supplied to the petitioner.

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that theimpugned orders are required to be set aside on theground that they are passed in violation of the principlesof natural justice, with a liberty to the respondents to passappropriate orders in accordance with law, making a re-assessment of the liability of the petitioner under theA.P.G.S.T. Act for the abovementioned assessmentyears, after affording a reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner by furnishing copies of all the documents,which are sought to be relied upon for the purpose ofmaking the re-assessment.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions, setting aside the impugnedorders.

----------------------J.Chelameswar, J------------------D.Appa Rao, J

mrk27[th] December 2006