APHC010253202009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 17331/2009 Between: G.chandrasekhara ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Revenuect Iv and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A RAZAK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA(SPL SC FOR CT-AP) 2. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA(SPL SC FOR CT AP) 2 The Court made the following order:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) The present writ petition is filed challenging the order issued in Memo No.4514/CT-IV/2009, dated 18.06.2009, by the 1st respondent, confirming the order dated 18.01.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner’s enrollment as Sale Tax Practitioner (STP) was cancelled. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was enrolled as STP under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (APGST) Act, 1957, bearing STP No.2745, Kavali, Nellore District. It is his further case that the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09.06.2008, calling for objections/explanation as to why the petitioner’s enrollment should not be cancelled on the ground that he misappropriated the tax paid by dealers by filing forged returns with ‘Nil’ turnover of 11 dealers, duly mentioning their names along with TIN numbers. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.08.2008, requesting the 3rd respondent to furnish copies of the alleged complaints received against him so as to enable him to file suitable reply. The petitioner submitted another representation 3 dated 25.08.2008, reiterating his request, however, the requested documents were not given. The show cause notice further alleged that the petitioner was preventing the dealers from paying the tax legally due to the department. It was also alleged that M/s.Vengamamba Bharat Gas Agencies, Udayagiri, Nellore District, made a complaint dated 24.08.2007, against the petitioner to the 5th respondent. The petitioner submitted reply dated 25.08.2008, denying all the allegations leveled against him and requested the 3rd respondent to drop all further proceedings in pursuance of the said notice. He further requested for a detailed enquiry to be conducted to avoid any further inconvenience in the matter. However, the 3rd respondent, vide order dated 18.11.2008, cancelled the petitioner’s enrollment as STP. 4. Aggrieved by the said cancellation order dated 18.11.2008, the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 65(6) of A.P.VAT Rules, 2005, before the 1st respondent, on the ground that, despite his request to provide information with regard to complaints received against him, the 3rd respondent, without furnishing the same, passed the order cancelling his enrollment as STP. Upon hearing the matter, the 1st respondent, by 4 impugned memo dated 18.06.2009, confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite his request for certain information with regard to the complaints received against him and without giving an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, the respondents passed impugned order, holding that the petitioner had committed serious irregularity. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 7. On perusal of the orders passed by both primary and appellate authorities, it is clear that, though the petitioner sought information with regard to the allegations leveled against him by the dealers, the same was admittedly not furnished to him. Furthermore, the petitioner specifically requested an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations leveled against him. However, his request was denied on the ground that, during the course of personal hearing before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was permitted to peruse the records on 12.08.2008 and 14.08.2008. 5 8. It is pertinent to note that, out of seven witnesses, only one witness gave evidence against the petitioner. Moreover, the information and evidence relied upon to support the allegations against the petitioner were not furnished to him, thereby the petitioner could not defend his case, in as much as, he does not know as to what allegations are made against him. 9. On the other hand, it is observed in the impugned order that the petitioner was permitted to peruse the record before passing cancellation order. However, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner specifically requested an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who deposed against him, which was admittedly not granted. Whenever the respondents are resorting to take action against the petitioner, they shall give fair opportunity to him to defend his case. As already stated, despite the petitioner’s request for cross examination of the witnesses, the same was denied, thereby the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice while passing the orders under challenge. 10. In view of the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 18.06.2009, passed by the 1st respondent, and the order 6 dated 18.11.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner by allowing him to cross examine the witnesses and pass appropriate orders in the matter after affording him an opportunity of being heard. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J DSB 7 62 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR W.P.No.17331 of 2009 Dated 28.03.2025 U DSB