JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the Assessment Order No.4936 dt.21.02.2015 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Sales Tax), Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad (4th respondent), and petitioner prays to set aside the same. 2. The petitioner Company is a registered dealer under APVAT & CST Acts and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of hose pipes i.e., PVC pipes products. 3. For the Assessment year 2011-12, the 4th respondent had issued notice under CST Act, 1956 to the petitioner, for which the petitioner contends that it furnished all the required information. 4. The impugned Assessment Order dt.21.02.2015 was passed by the 4th respondent invoking Section 6A of the said Act demanding CST of Rs.24,25,280/- on inter-State sales not covered by C/F-Forms, stock transfer covered by F-Form and not covered by proof of dispatch,. 5. The petitioner contends that the rate of tax is in fact only 5% on the goods manufactured by the petitioner, but the 4th respondent illegally levied tax at 14.5% in the impugned order. According to the petitioner, for the very same goods for the next year 2012-13, assessment was made at 5% rate of tax by the same 4th respondent through Order No.40973 dt.27.10.2016. It points out that once goods are stock transferred and Forms-F were submitted, that itself is a proof of dispatch under Section 6A of the CST Act, 1956 and the order of the 4th respondent is contrary to law. 6. According to the petitioner, if the rate of 5% is applied for inter State sale of goods not covered by C-Form or F-Form and no tax for goods covered by F-Form, then the liability of CST is only Rs.3,39,856/- and the petitioner had already paid Rs.2,80,833/- and also Rs.2,81,892/-. 7. The petitioner contends that it had paid more than the entire CST due and the Assessment Order No.4936 dt.21.02.2015 also reflects the same and further amount of Rs.2,81,892/- was paid on 04.05.2015 as well. 8. According to the petitioner, it preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Punjagutta, Hyderabad on 06.04.2015 i.e., the 3rd respondent against the order passed by the 4th respondent, but the said Appeal was rejected by him vide.AJC Order No.1032 dt.23.10.2017 in view of non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax. 8. According to the petitioner, it preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Punjagutta, Hyderabad on 06.04.2015 i.e., the 3rd respondent against the order passed by the 4th respondent, but the said Appeal was rejected by him vide.AJC Order No.1032 dt.23.10.2017 in view of non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax. It is contended that the amounts already paid by the petitioner were not taken into account by the 3rd respondent erroneously and that the 3rd respondent observed erroneously that the petitioner can obtain rectification of the impugned order by filing an Application before the 4th respondent. 9. According to the petitioner, it had filed letters dt.16.06.2017 and 12.03.2018 before the 4th respondent to rectify the impugned Assessment Order, but the 4th respondent has not passed any revised order on the petitioner's request and in the meantime, letter dt.05.01.2018 was issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to pay Rs.22,55,175/- and this was followed up with another letter dt.27.12.2019 also demanding the said amount. 10. Sri J.Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents on instructions states that the 4th respondent will dispose of the petitioner's representations dt.16.06.2017 and 12.03.2018 and re-do the exercise of passing of fresh Assessment Order since there appears to be mathematical error in computing the tax payable by the petitioner. 11. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed; Assessment Order No.4936 dt.21.02.2015 passed by the 4th respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within 8 weeks after considering the contentions of the petitioner in representations dt.16.06.2017 and 12.03.2018 made by the petitioner. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of any amount pursuant to the impugned order till a fresh order is passed by the 4th respondent. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.