JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in all these Writ Petitioners is the same. It is a registered dealer under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of the 2nd respondent doing business in trading of FMCG products such as detergents, cosmetics, shampoos, baby garments and clothing, etc. 2. The 2nd respondent who is the regular Assessing Authority of the petitioner had passed a Common Assessment Order against the petitioner for the tax periods 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide A.O.No.41131 dt.28.10.2016. 3. In the said order, the Assessing Authority determined that petitioner had paid excess tax of Rs.18,89,268/- during 2013-14. Therefore, out of the same, the 2nd respondent adjusted the tax due of Rs.2,23,927/- for the year 2014-15 and Rs.2,76,852/- for the period 2015- 16, and arrived at an excess of Rs.13,88,489/-. 4. The petitioner was advised to seek either a refund of the same or adjustment towards future liability. 5. At the suggestion of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner contended that it opted for adjustment of the same for future liability and that it had adjusted the same in its October, 2016 monthly return which was also accepted by the Assessing Authority, and the same was reflected in the petitioner's Ledger Account with the Commercial Tax Department. Writ Petition No.7953 of 2020. 6. The 1st respondent, who is the regular Assessing Authority of the petitioner and on authorization from the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax), Hyderabad Rural Division took up the audit and assessment of the petitioner for the tax period 2016-17 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) and issued a show-cause notice dt.16.03.2020 proposing to impose an additional tax of Rs.19,92,598/-. 7. While doing so, according to petitioner, the 1st respondent did not take into consideration the amount of Rs.13,88,489/- which was determined to be the extra tax paid by the petitioner which was adjusted towards the tax payable as per October, 2016 monthly return. 8. The petitioner filed its reply to the show-cause notice dt.16.03.2020 through a letter dt.18.03.2020 filed on 19.03.2020 wherein the petitioner inter alia pointed out that the amount of Rs.13,88,489/- which was determined as the excess tax payable by the petitioner (and which it had adjusted during October, 2016 monthly return) was not taken into account and requested the 1st respondent to consider it while passing the Assessment Order. 9. 9. The 1st respondent passed the impugned Assessment Order No.32414 dt.19.03.2020 no doubt referring to the petitioner's contention about the excess tax paid by it during the previous tax periods and its adjustment, but did not give any decision or finding with regard to the said request; and no credit was given or adjustment made for the amount of Rs.13,88,498/- which the petitioner had already paid in excess during the tax period 2013-14. 10. The petitioner herein has challenged the Assessment Order No.32414 dt.19.03.2020 in Writ Petition No.7953 of 2020. Writ Petition No.7967 of 2020 11. Thereafter, on the basis of the above Assessment Order, the 1st respondent passed Assessment Order No.52481 dt.31.03.2020 imposing 100% penalty under Section 53(3) of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005. Before passing the said order, regarding the penalty the 1st respondent had issued a show-cause notice dt.19.03.2020 and gave a mere one (01) week time to the petitioner to file his objections. The petitioner received the same on 20.03.2020. The petitioner contended that there was no allegations of fraud or willful negligence which are necessary ingredients for invoking Section 53(3) of the above Act in the said show-cause notice and in view of the lockdown imposed on account of spread of COVID-19 pandemic by the Central and State Governments, the petitioner could not file any reply or objections to the said show-cause notice; and the 1st respondent could not be imposed the said penalty through the Assessment Order No.52481 dt.31.03.2020. The said Assessment Order No.52481 dt.31.03.2020 is questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7967 of 2020. Writ Petition No.7950 of 2020. 12. The 1st respondent on the basis of the Assessment Order dt.19.03.2020 also issued ex parte penal interest order vide Assessment Order No.54646 dt.16.05.2020 imposing penalty interest of Rs.10,86,800/- for alleged delay in payment of tax determined in the Assessment Order No.32414 dt.19.03.2020. 13. The 1st respondent imposed penal interest at the rate of 1.25 % per month by taking the due date for payment of the tax for 2016- 17 as 20.04.2017 and for 2017-18 as 20.07.2017 even though the said tax was determined for the first time only through Assessment Order dt.19.03.2020, and was not tax due as per the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. There was no prior show-cause notice issued by the 1st respondent and only opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing this order on 16.05.2020. 14. The petitioner assails this order in Writ Petition No.7950 of 2020. Contentions of counsel for petitioner 15. The counsel for petitioner contended that the 1st respondent could not have ignored the fact that petitioner had paid excess tax of Rs.13,88,498 for the tax period 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16; and that the petitioner had even adjusted in October, 2016 monthly returns in its records which was also accepted by the Assessing Authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent. He also contended that the 1st respondent could not have passed the penalty order or levied penal interest on the petitioner and that this is per se arbitrary, illegal and violates Art.14, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Contentions of the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes 16. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, could not offer any explanation why in the impugned Assessment Order No.32414 dt.19.03.2020 the 1st respondent did not adjust this amount of Rs.13,88,498,towards the tax liability of Rs.19,92,598/-. The consideration by the Court 17. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is being asked to pay Rs.13,88,498/- which the respondents had already received from the petitioner in excess and which was already adjusted in the October, 2016 monthly return, and which adjustment was also accepted by the Assessing Authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent. This clearly vitiates the said Assessment Order dt.19.03.2020. 18. Coming to the Assessment Order No.52481 dt.31.03.2020, imposing 100% penalty on the petitioner on the basis of the Assessment Order dt.32414 dt.19.03.2020, once the said Assessment Order dt.31414 dt.19.03.2020 is found vitiated, as mentioned above, this order dt.31.03.2020 of Assessment Order No.52481 cannot stand. Moreover, the 1st respondent had issued show-cause notice dt.19.03.2020 granting time to the petitioner to file its reply within seven (7) days of receipt of the said show-cause notice, and at that time there was a lockdown imposed by the State Government as well as the Central Government and the petitioner was disabled from filing a reply to the said show-cause notice and objecting to the levy of penalty and the invocation of Section 53(3) of the Act. This also vitiates the Assessment Order No.52481 dt.31.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent. 19. This also vitiates the Assessment Order No.52481 dt.31.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent. 19. Coming to the Assessment Order No.54646 dt.16.05.2020 passed by the 1st respondent imposing ex parte penal interest of Rs.10,86,800/- for the period 2016-17 and 2017-18, admittedly, this order was passed without any prior show-cause notice to the petitioner. Also, the liability to pay tax for the period 2016-17 and 2017-18 came to be determined by the 1st respondent for the first time only vide Assessment Order No.32414 dt.19.03.2020 and it was not a tax due as per the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not proper for the 1st respondent to take due date of payment of tax for 2016-17 as 20.04.2017 and for 2017-18 as 20.07.2017. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, all the three Writ Petitions are allowed; the Assessment Orders No.32414 dt.19.03.2020, 52481 dt.31.03.2020 and 54646 dt.16.05.2020 are all set aside; and the 1st respondent is directed to pass an fresh assessment order regarding liability of the petitioner to pay VAT for the period 2016-17, 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) afresh after taking into account the adjustment of excess tax of Rs.13,88,498/- already paid by the petitioner for 2013-14 as per the Assessment Order No.41131 dt.28.10.2016 and its adjustment in October, 2016 monthly returns of the petitioner which was also accepted by the Assessing Authority. The 1st respondent shall also consider the other contentions raised by the petitioner in its reply dt.18.03.2020 filed on 19.03.2020 and afford a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing a fresh assessment order regarding the tax liability of the petitioner for the above period. 21. This exercise shall be completed by the 1st respondent within three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed as above. No order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.