JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Petition is filed by petitioner herein challenging the Assessment Order dt.28.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent for the periods 2014-15 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner herein is a registered dealer under the provisions of the said Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent. 3. The petitioner provides medical services in the field of Gastroenterology and it also has a Pharmacy for sale of drugs and medicines. 4. According to the petitioner, its establishment was taken over as a 'going concern' along with all the assets and liabilities w.e.f. 01.04.2017 by another company by name M/s. Madhuadit Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'MHPL') pursuant to a Memorandum of Transfer of Business executed between the parties on 27.04.2017, and the said transaction was in the nature of a slump sale of a going concern for a lumpsum consideration of Rs.52,08,165/-. The petitioner contends that this transaction cannot be subjected to levy of VAT. According to petitioner, it ceased to conduct any services or business w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and did not have any turnover and it also did not receive any payment from 'MHPL' towards take over of the proprietary concern, but the excess of assets over liabilities was treated partly as an unsecured loan and partly as share capital of the proprietary concern of the petitioner as per the Memorandum of Transfer and a Board Resolution dt.31.03.2017. 5. The 1st respondent issued notices in Form VAT - 304 and Form VAT - 310 dt.22.06.2019 calling upon the petitioner to produce Books of Account for the Assessment period April, 2014 to June, 2017 for audit purposes. The petitioner produced the entire records as called for on 30.07.2019. 6. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice dt.12.02.2020 proposing to levy additional VAT of Rs.82,04,233/- for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) and gave to the petitioner seven (7) days' time to file a reply. 7. After receiving the said notice on 14.02.2020, the petitioner sought legal advise and filed a letter on 20.02.2020 seeking additional time of two (02) months to file objections since it had to gather various tax invoices from 2014-15 apart from taking legal advice. 8. On 13.04.2020, the petitioner received the impugned Assessment Order dt.28.03.2020 confirming levy of VAT of Rs.82,39,156/- from April, 2014 to June, 2017. 9. 8. On 13.04.2020, the petitioner received the impugned Assessment Order dt.28.03.2020 confirming levy of VAT of Rs.82,39,156/- from April, 2014 to June, 2017. 9. In the said impugned order, the 1st respondent recorded that the petitioner, having received the show-cause notice, did not file any objections and also claimed that it had issued an endorsement dt.28.02.2020 to file objections. The petitioner denies that it had received such endorsement. 10. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of being heard even on merits. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent illegally levied VAT of Rs.78,48,119/- for 2017- 18 on a baseless presumption that petitioner had effected sale of its assets to 'MHPL' at Book Value and that there is no sale as a 'going concern'. 11. The counsel for petitioner reiterated the above contentions and stated that petitioner is approaching this Court since the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of being heard in the matter, and that the petitioner cannot be compelled to file an appeal since the said remedy is onerous because petitioner would have to deposit 12.5% of the disputed tax without any provision for waiver. 12. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes states on instructions that the 1st respondent is willing to give an opportunity to the petitioner to place on record all the material in the petitioner's possession in support of its contentions and also to file a reply to the show-cause notice; and that the 1st respondent had erroneously overlooked the letter dt.20.02.2020 filed by the petitioner seeking time to file objections. 13. We have noted the submissions of both sides. 14. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice dt.12.02.2020 proposing to levy additional VAT of Rs.82,04,233/- for the periods 2014-15 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) and gave a mere seven (07) days' time to the petitioner to file a reply. 15. In such a short time, it is not possible for the petitioner to file all the documentary evidence and also file a detailed reply covering a period of more than five (05) years. 15. In such a short time, it is not possible for the petitioner to file all the documentary evidence and also file a detailed reply covering a period of more than five (05) years. It is not in dispute that petitioner filed a letter dt.20.02.2020 seeking additional time of two (02) months to file objections to gather the various tax invoices from 2014-15 and also to seek legal advice in the matter. 16. The petitioner's request, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a reasonable one and the 1st respondent cannot ignore the same and proceed to pass the Assessment Order dt.28.03.2020 confirming levy of VAT of Rs.82,39,156/- for the said period from April, 2014-15 to June, 2017. 17. There is no material filed by the respondents to show that the endorsement allegedly made on 28.02.2020 by him (which is referred to in the impugned order) was, in fact, served on the petitioner at all. 18. In any event, the time granted to the petitioner was too short and there has been a clear violation of principles of natural justice and denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order No.40122 dt.28.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within three (03) months. 20. The petitioner is granted 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order to file it's reply as well as supporting material, and the same shall be considered by the 1st respondent and a reasoned order shall be passed by the 1st respondent in accordance with law within the time stipulated above. 21. A personal hearing shall also be afforded to the petitioner's representative by the 1st respondent before passing of the fresh assessment order after remand. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.