ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first Respondent in issuing Endorsement Proceedings, dated 26.08.2019, rejecting the refund of excess tax of Rs. 19,10,799/- due to the Petitioner as per the Assessment Proceedings, dated 25.10.2014, for tax period 2010-11 and 2011-12 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the Respondents to refund the excess tax due to the Petitioner, as per the Assessment Proceedings.

2. (i) The Petitioner herein is a Proprietorship concern, engaged in business of Works Contract. The Head Office of the Petitioner is in Dindigul, State of Tamilnadu. The Petitioner was a registered dealer on the rolls of first Respondent, both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [‘VAT Act’], with its local Office at Naidupeta Mandal, Nellore District.

3. The Petitioner is said to have executed civil contract works, as per the Work Order, dated 03.04.2010, to the Contractee, namely, Loyal Textile Mills Limited, at Menakur Village, Naidupeta Mandal, Nellore District.

4. While things stood thus, pursuant to the authorization given by Deputy Commissioner, Nellore, the first Respondent i.e., The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, inspected the business premises of the Petitioner at Menakur Village on 29.08.2012 and, thereafter, completed the assessment vide Proceedings, dated 25.10.2014, for the tax periods referred to above.

5. The first Respondent herein is said to have passed Assessment Order, dated 25.10.2014, holding that the Petitioner is having an excess credit of Rs.19,10,799/-, which came to be passed after verification of the records up to the audit period of 31.03.2012. A Notice of Assessment in FORM 305A was issued and served on the dealer. On receipt of the notice, the dealer submitted a letter, accepting the proposal and requested the concerned to pass orders. Thereafter, the second Respondent in exercise of suo muto revisional powers under Section 32(2) of the VAT Act, proposed to revise the assessment proceedings passed by the first Respondent and a show-cause notice, dated 30.04.2018, was issued. The Petitioner is said to have filed objections, dated 13.06.2018. Thereafter, the second Respondent fixed the date of personal hearing, vide notice, dated 18.06.2018, and heard the Petitioner on 17.07.2018. He also issued another notice, dated 20.03.2019, stating that under Section 13(3) of the VAT Act, when the Petitioner has claimed ITC, he should not have been in possession of valid tax invoices for the material supplied, on cost recovery basis.

6. In response to the same, the Petitioner sent a letter, dated 08.03.2019, in which, he explained the reasons that the material was supplied to the Petitioner on cost basis and the same is inclusive of tax. Thus, the value of the material along with the tax component was deducted from the total receivable amount due to the Petitioner from the Contractee, hence, requested to exclude the tax component from the disputed turnover and allow the benefit of input tax credit. But, for the reasons best known, the Order was not communicated to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner claims to have met personally and explained the case in detail before the second Respondent. But, in-spite of the same, the Petitioner did not receive any communication till date.

7. On 03.08.2019, the Petitioner made a request to the first Respondent seeking refund of Rs.19,07,799/-. At that point of time, an Endorsement, dated 26.08.2019, came to be issued, wherein the request of the Petitioner, for refund, came to be rejected. The same is subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

8. (i) Sri. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, mainly submits that, the action of the first Respondent i