JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging the Assessment Order No.19543 dt.28.03.2019 passed by 1st respondent for the period 2014-15 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1st respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of steel and other allied products. 4. During the period 2014-15 it made certain sales in the course of import (High Sea sales) in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act and it filed its monthly returns claiming exemption. 5. The petitioner contends that without serving any prior show-cause notice on it, the impugned Assessment Order dt.28.03.219 was passed by the 1st respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period 2014-15 levying a tax of Rs.1,23,91,535/-. 6. Other contentions on merits of the order passed by the 1st respondent were also raised including a contention that the 1st respondent ought not to have treated export sales in the course of import (High Sea sales) which are exempted from tax by treating them as inter-State sales. The petitioner also contended that on 21.06.2019 its representatives approached the 1st respondent with the relevant record and necessary documentary evidence available in support of the claim made by the petitioner in its returns, and that the 1st respondent agreed to pass revised orders orally but did not do so. 7. It is also contended that there was a change in the management / shareholders of the petitioner during the year under consideration; and so the petitioner could not approach the 1st respondent immediately after the order was served since the records for the period 2014-15 were not readily available with it owing to the change in the management. 8. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents, contended that the show-cause notice dt.06.02.2019 was issued to the petitioner by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (R.P.A.D.), and that the impugned order refers to the same. However, he is unable to produce the acknowledgment cards showing service of the said show-cause notice on the petitioner. 9. 8. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents, contended that the show-cause notice dt.06.02.2019 was issued to the petitioner by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (R.P.A.D.), and that the impugned order refers to the same. However, he is unable to produce the acknowledgment cards showing service of the said show-cause notice on the petitioner. 9. When a huge levy of tax liability of Rs.1,23,91,535/- was being fastened on the petitioner, it is the minimum duty of the 1st respondent to ensure service of show-cause notice dt.06.02.2019 on the petitioner; and even if the said show-cause notice was allegedly dispatched to the petitioner, when it is not proved to have been served on the petitioner, the 1st respondent cannot blame the petitioner for not filing objections to the show-cause notice or not filing C-Forms. 10. We are of the opinion that there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice, and that the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice thereby and so the alternative remedy of appeal available under the provisions of the Act would not come in the petitioner's way to challenge this Assessment Order by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; AO No.11543 dt.28.03.2019 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside; the 1st respondent is directed to serve a show-cause notice on the petitioner indicating the proposed turnover and the proposed tax under the Act for the period 2014-15. 12. The petitioner is granted six (06) weeks' time from the date of receipt of copy of the said show-cause notice to file objections to the said show-cause notice along with supporting material. The 1st respondent shall also provide personal hearing to petitioner, and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.