JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment order No.53886 dt.31.03.2020 for the year 2015-16 under the CST Act, 1956 passed by the 1st respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, for the same year, the 2nd respondent had completed the final assessment under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 after thorough verification of the books of accounts on 06.03.2017 giving a clear finding that inter-state sales were only Rs.2,76,80,058/-; that books of accounts werebmaintained common for both Telangana VAT Act as well as CST Act; that though in the pre-assessment show-cause notice dt.27.12.2017 served by the 1st respondent on the petitioner, the total interstate sales turnover was correctly mentioned, levy of tax at 14.5% was proposed thereon. Petitioner contends that this is erroneous since it's entire turnover was covered by C-Forms and the rate of tax applicable under Section 8(1) of the CST Act was only 2%. 3. Petitioner contended that it had submitted a letter on 20.03.2019 to the 1st respondent enclosing C-Declaration Forms for the entire taxable turnover, which was acknowledged by the Office of the 1st respondent on 22.03.2019, but the same were not considered by the 1st respondent. 4. It is also contended that the 1st respondent sent through e-mail , a notice dt.04.05.2019 proposing gross turnover of Rs.12,06,30,163/- and to tax the same at 14.5% without giving any reason, as to why the earlier notice dt.27.12.2017 issued by him is revised. It further contended that the 1st respondent issued notice on 30.03.2020, when the COVID-19 lockdown imposed by both the State and Central Governments, calling the petitioner for a personal hearing along with information in a worksheet annexed to the notice which was dispatched through e-mail at 7.15 p.m. on 30.03.2020; since the petitioner's business was closed because of the lockdown, which came into effect from 23.03.2020, petitioner could not respond to the said notice or submit information in the annexed work sheet or avail the personal hearing granted; and that on the very next day, the impugned assessment order was passed on 31.03.2020 by the 1st respondent which was served through registered post to the petitioner on 17.06.2020. 5. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that service of the personal hearing notice on 30.03.2020 at 7.15 p.m., through e-mail during the lockdown period by the 1st respondent is not proper and passing of the impugned assessment order by the 1st respondent on the very next day, i.e. 31.03.2020, cannot be sustained, and there has been a grave violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Sri J.Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents does not dispute that petitioner could not avail the personal hearing because of the lockdown. He stated that if the impugned assessment order is set aside, the 1st respondent was willing to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh. 7. We are of the considered opinion that there has been a grave violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the personal hearing notice dt.30.03.2020 was served at 7.15 p.m. through e-mail and the impugned assessment order was passed on the very next day i.e 31.3.2020 when there was a lockdown prevalent on account of COVID-19 pandemic situation and the petitioner was disabled from availing the personal hearing offered by the 1st respondent. 8. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned assessment order No.53886 dt.31.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; petitioner is permitted to file fresh objections to the show cause notice dt.04.06.2019 issued by the 1st respondent, if the petitioner so desires, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; after receipt of the objections, if any, filed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent shall provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.