JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition the petitioners are assailing the Assessment Order No.42968 dt.29.03.2020 and notice of final assessment and demand bearing Assessment No.CST/36740170049/15-16 dt.29.03.2020 received on 09.06.2020 by petitioners demanding that the 1st petitioner pay the sum of Rs.80,50,801/- within (21) days, and to set it aside. 2. The 1st petitioner is a proprietary concern of its proprietor Sri P. Ram Murthy. 3. It is a registered S.S.I. Unit, and is a registered VAT dealer. 4. The proprietor, viz., Sri P. Ram Murthy of the 1st petitioner-entity died on 08.01.2017 leaving petitioner Nos.2 to 6 as his legal heirs. 5. The petitioners contend that they received by registered post on 09.06.2020 the impugned assessment order dt.29.03.2020 demanding Rs.80,50,801/- from the 1st petitioner, but prior to issuing of the final assessment order / demand notice, not even a show-cause notice had been served on the 1st petitioner. 6. They further contend that though the impugned assessment order dt.29.03.2020 refers to issuance of a show-cause notice, it does not mention its date nor the date when it was served on the 1st petitioner. 7. They also contend that the impugned order refers to a reminder notice dt.20.11.2019 and a final notice dt.06.03.2020, but even these notices have not been served on the 1st petitioner, and that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents, does not dispute that show-cause notice prior to the passing of the impugned assessment order does not appear to have been served on the 1st petitioner; and that there is also no material to show service of the reminder notice dt.20.11.2019 and the final notice dt.06.03.2020, because the proprietor of the 1st petitioner had died on 08.01.2017 itself. 9. In our considered opinion, there has been a violation of principles of natural justice and that the 2nd respondent ought to have served show-cause notices on the petitioners prior to passing of the Assessment Order and prior to issuance of the notice of final assessment and demand pursuant to the said assessment order. 10. 9. In our considered opinion, there has been a violation of principles of natural justice and that the 2nd respondent ought to have served show-cause notices on the petitioners prior to passing of the Assessment Order and prior to issuance of the notice of final assessment and demand pursuant to the said assessment order. 10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order No.42968 dt.29.03.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the notice of final Annual Assessment and Demand dt.29.03.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st petitioner are both set aside; the 2nd respondent shall serve a showcause notice on the petitioner nos.2 to 6 by RPAD; the petitioners are granted six (06) weeks' time from the date of service of such showcause notice to file objections / reply to the said show-cause notice along with supporting material; a personal hearing shall also be afforded to the petitioners / representative of petitioners; and then a reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.