Ramesh Ranganathan, JJ.

The order of the first respondent dated July 26, 2010, cancelling the VAT registration granted earlier to the petitioner, and her failure to issue way bills, is under challenge in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a partnership-firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of PVC pipes, is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). They purchased a sick unit, hitherto owned by the third respondent, in a public auction conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) in exercise of its powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. It is the petitioner's case that, on payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 52.56 lakhs, the APSFC had executed a sale deed dated November 2, 2009 in their favour; the factory premises consisting of land admeasuring 6000 sq. meters in plot Nos. 50, 51, 52, 54, 55 and 56 covered by Sy. No. 448/2, 449/2 and 450/2 situated in the Industrial Estate, Chityala, Nalgonda District along with plant and machinery, were handed over to them; and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property ever since.

The petitioner sought registration as a VAT dealer in the name and style of "Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Industries", and filed an application in form VAT 100 before the first respondent who registered the petitioner as a VAT dealer on April 28, 2010 with effect from May 1, 2010. It is the petitioner's grievance that, despite registration, no way-bills were issued by the first respondent on the ground that the registration granted earlier was cancelled. The petitioner would contend that they were not aware of cancellation of the registration till then; subsequently the first respondent, by endorsement dated August 27, 2010, had informed them that cancellation of registration was in view of the interim order of status quo passed in W.P. No. 21567 of 2009 dated February 25, 2010; the said endorsement allegedly sent by registered post was returned unserved on the ground that they were not available at the address for 10 days; this was followed by notice dated September 3, 2010, whereby their request for issue of way-bills was allegedly refused; they did not receive the notice in original, but a photostat copy thereof was given to them later; a certified copy of the cancellation order dated July 26, 2010 was furnished to them on November 9, 2010; and, despite filing an application under the Right to Information Act, neither was a copy of the notice in form VAT 125, nor the cover alleged to have been returned unserved, made available to them.

According to the petitioner, the third respondent had filed W.P. No. 21567 of 2009 challenging the proposed action of the fourth respondent, in handing over the lock and keys of the factory premises to third parties without notice to them, as being illegal; this court, in its order dated October 13, 2009, had held that the plant and machinery was handed over on October 5, 2009, to the successful bidder in the auction conducted as per the notification dated June 11, 2009, but had observed that, since the petitioner's counsel was disputing handing over of possession to third parties, possession shall not be handed over for a period of one week, if possession in fact had not been handed over; and subsequently, on a vacate stay petition being filed by the APSFC, this court, by order dated February 25, 2010, had directed the parties to maintain status quo as on February 25, 2010. The petitioner would submit that W.P. No. 25329 of 2009 was filed by the third respondent challenging the notice issued by APSFC dated November 12, 2009 demanding Rs. 113.22 lakhs; initially this court granted interim stay subject to the condition that Rs. 35 lakhs was deposited; and, as the third respondent had failed to deposit the said amoun