ORDER :

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the rejection orders dated 31.01.2020 rejecting the restoration application dated 04.08.2018 filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2008-09 under CST Act, 1956, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard and more particularly, when the defects raised in A.R.No.162/2016 was rectified by the petitioner, as arbitrary, contrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule of Law and consequently to set aside the rejection orders of the 1st respondent, dated 31.01.2020 as null and void.”

2. Heard submissions made by Sri ShaikJeelaniBasha, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. At the stage of admission, as consented by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court made the following Order.

3. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Cotton and Cotton Seed during tax period 2008-09 and he is dealer on the rolls of the 3rd respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter “VAT Act, 2005”) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter “CST Act, 1956”). The 3rd respondent being the Assessing Authority initially assessed for the tax period 2008-09 on 12.01.2012 levying tax on the deemed export sales in the absence of “H” declaration forms. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority considered the request of the petitioner and revised the Assessment Order on 31.01.2013 relating to H-forms filed by the petitioner and granted relief, vide orders dated 12.10.2015 which became final.

4. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent acting under revisional powers proposed to revise the assessment proceedings by virtue of his powers under Section 32 of the V.A.T. Act, 2005 read with Section 9 (2) of the C.S.T. Act, 1956. The 2nd respondent intended to revise on a turnover of Rs.1,65,37,042/- as the transaction does not qualify for exemption in the absence of statutory forms. The Assessee was directed to pay the tax to a tune of Rs.6,61,482/-. Accordingly, a revised show cause notice dated 29.03.2016 was issued.

5. Consequently, the petitioner filed an explanation to the show cause notice on 30.04.2016 stating that there is no fresh material to revise the assessment. The Revisional Authority rejecting the plea of the petitioner passed revised proceedings stating that the prescribed ‘H’ forms shall be submitted only at the time of assessment and the first Assessing Authority should not have considered the said forms.

6. It is the submission of the petitioner that the Revisional Authority passed proceedings dated 10.06.2016 without granting an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the A.P.V.A.T. Appellate Tribunal under Section 33 of the V.A.T. Act, 2005 but did not make payment of 25% of the disputed tax and appeal fees vide A.R.No.162 of 2016. As a result, it was rejected by the Tribunal on 17.07.2017. The petitioner filed restoration petition before the Tribunal on 04.08.2018 duly rectifying the defects as per the appeal rejection proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the said application vide order dated 31.01.2020. In this view of the matter, the petitioner prays for indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there is no alternative remedy left to him to pursue the matter challenging the rejection order of the 1st respondent on the petition filed for restoration of appeal without giving opportunity of being heard.

7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar, it is beneficial to look into relevant provisions of appeal under the V.A.T Act, 2005.

Section 33 (1) (b) the Andhra Pradesh V.A.T Act, 2005- (1) Any dealer objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded:-

(a) by any authority, on appea