JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - W.P.No.9788 of 2020 In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the order dt.27-09-2019 passed by the 1st respondent received by the petitioner through his Auditor on 17-12-2019 for the tax period 2014-15 to 2015-16 under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 3rd respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the Act. 3. It purchases iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap from the local dealers within the State of Telangana and effects sales of iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap to local dealers in Telangana and also out of the State of Telangana against 'C' forms. 4. For the tax period April, 2014 and March, 2016, the 2nd respondent, as authorized the Dy.Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, visited the business premises of petitioner on 04-08-2015, issued a notice in VAT-304 directing the petitioner to produce relevant records and vouchers. 5. In response thereto, petitioner claims to have furnished all the required information to the 2nd respondent during the course of audit of assessment. 6. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice in Form-305A dt.07-02-2017 stating that certain variations were noticed for the year 2014-15 and 2015-16. 7. Petitioner gave a reply thereto on 31-05-2017 disputing the same. 8. The 2nd respondent then passed the assessment order on 26-07-2017 rejecting the objections. He confirmed tax of Rs.5,14,029/- for the year 2014-15 and Rs.35,12,109/- for the year 2015-16 treating all the sales as liable for tax at 14.5% rejecting petitioner's contentions that only 5% is leviable. 9. According to the petitioner, no personal hearing was given to it before passing the said order dt.26-07-2017 of the 2nd respondent and in the said order, the 2nd respondent mentioned that petitioner did not file way bills, without putting the same in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. 10. Aggrieved by the said order dt.26-07-2017 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 24-08-2017 in Form-400 through its Auditor. 11. 10. Aggrieved by the said order dt.26-07-2017 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 24-08-2017 in Form-400 through its Auditor. 11. The Auditor, according to the petitioner, did not respond to the notices issued by the 1st respondent and did not even inform the petitioner about such issuance of notices, and the 1st respondent passed an order on 27-09-2019 simply extracting the contentions of the petitioner raised in the grounds of appeal, without discussing the same and rejected the appeal. 12. According to the petitioner, though the 1st respondent stated in the said order that final notice dt.03-04-2019 was sent to the petitioner, petitioner did not receive it. 13. Thereafter, it appears that a demand notice dt.30-12-2019 was issued by 3rd respondent demanding Rs.1,17,04,232/- ignoring petitioner's claim that it is entitled to refund of Rs.57,90,413/- for 2013-14, Rs.26.00 lakhs for 2014-15 and Rs.30.00 lakhs for 2015- 16. Thereafter the 3rd respondent also issued a garnishee notice dt.30-12-2019 to the petitioner's Banker (4th respondent) demanding Rs.1,17,04,232/- and the 4th respondent issued bankers cheque for the amount of Rs.18,75,000/- on 05-02-2020 and the same was debited from the bank account of the petitioner. It appears that the 3rd respondent also sent a letter dt.03-02-2020 to the Sub-Registrar, Qutbullapur, Medchal District (5th respondent) to blacklist the immovable properties of the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent to deal with the contentions raised by petitioner in the grounds of appeal and he cannot simply reject the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not avail opportunity of personal hearing. He also contended that the Auditor did not inform the petitioner about the notices issued by 1st respondent and the petitioner was disabled from making submissions before the 1st respondent and there has been denial of principal of natural justice. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner therefore contended that the order passed by the 1st respondent dt.27-09-2019 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the 1st respondent to give personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass a fresh order. 16. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner therefore contended that the order passed by the 1st respondent dt.27-09-2019 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the 1st respondent to give personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass a fresh order. 16. A perusal of the impugned order dt.27-09-2019 passed by the 1st respondent indicates that 1st respondent simply extracted the contentions of the petitioner and did not deal with any of the contentions raised by petitioner and simply dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not avail opportunities of personal hearing provided to it and did not produce any supporting documentary evidence contradicting the findings recorded by the Audit Officer in his order dt.26-07-2017. 17. We are of the opinion that whether or not the petitioner availed the opportunity of personal hearing, it is the duty of the 1st respondent, as appellate authority, to deal with the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by petitioner and the 1st respondent could not have rejected the appeal only on the ground that personal hearing opportunity was not availed by the petitioner. 18. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 states that 1st respondent will give an opportunity to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order in the appeal filed by the petitioner since petitioner contends about violation of principles of natural justice. 19. In this view of the matter, W.P.No.9788 of 2020 is allowed; the ADC Order No.1479 dt.27-09-2019 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside; the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent being appeal No.R/56/2017-2018-VAT is restored to the file of the 1st respondent; the petitioner is granted four (04) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file whatever supporting material petitioner wishes to, before the 1st respondent in the said appeal; and the 1st respondent shall then pass a reasoned order within eight (08) weeks thereafter and communicate it to the petitioner. No costs. W.P.No.9810 of 2020 20. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails ADC Order No.1478 dt.27-09-2019 passed by the 1st respondent. 21. The said order has been passed by the 1st respondent in the appeal filed by petitioner against the assessment of VAT made in Form VAT-305 dt.26-07-2017 for the tax period April, 2012 to March, 2014. 22. No costs. W.P.No.9810 of 2020 20. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails ADC Order No.1478 dt.27-09-2019 passed by the 1st respondent. 21. The said order has been passed by the 1st respondent in the appeal filed by petitioner against the assessment of VAT made in Form VAT-305 dt.26-07-2017 for the tax period April, 2012 to March, 2014. 22. In this W.P also, it is contended by the petitioner that in the impugned order passed by 1st respondent on 27-09-2019, the 1st the respondent simply extracted the grounds of appeal and rejected the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not avail the opportunities of personal hearing and did not produce supporting documentary evidence contradicting the findings recorded by the Audit Officer. 23. The other pleas raised in W.P.No.9788 of 2020 are also raised in this Writ Petition. 24. Therefore, for the reasons, which have already been furnished by us in W.P.No.9788 of 2020 as above, this Writ Petition is also allowed; the order ADC No.1478 dt.24-07-2019 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside; the appeal No.R/57/2017-18-VAT filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment of VAT made by 2nd respondent on 26-07-2017 for the tax period April, 2012 to March, 2014 is restored to the file of the 1st respondent; the petitioner is granted four (04) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file whatever supporting material petitioner wishes to, before the 1st respondent in the said appeal; and the 1st respondent shall then pass a reasoned order within eight (08) weeks thereafter and communicate it to the petitioner. No costs. 25. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.