JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is assailing the Assessment Order No.51864 dt.31.03.2020 passed by 2nd respondent for the period April, 2013 to June, 2017 under the provisions of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which has its registered office at New Delhi and Branch Office at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana. 3. The petitioner-Company is an assessee under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 and is registered on the rolls of the 1st respondent. 4. On an authorization issued by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad on 04.12.2018, the 2nd respondent conducted VAT audit on the petitioner on 13.12.2018 for the tax period April, 2013 to June, 2017. 5. After obtaining separate authorization from the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad on 11.03.2020, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice in Form-VAT 305-A dt.11.03.2020 proposing to complete assessment of the petitioner for the said tax period. 6. The petitioner filed a reply on 26.03.2020 by e-mail to the 2nd respondent because of the lock-down imposed by the Central and State Governments in view of the COVID-19 Pandemic and also sought for personal hearing. 7. Without providing any personal hearing, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned Assessment Order on 31.03.2020. 8. The counsel for petitioner contended that the impugned assessment made by the 2nd respondent was in fact barred by limitation for the period April, 2013 to January, 2014, and this point was not dealt with by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order. 9. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent ought to have provided a personal hearing when it was sought by the petitioner; and in view of the lock-down imposed by the Central and State Governments on account of COVID-19 pandemic situation, the 2nd respondent ought to have deferred the assessment till normalcy is restored. 10. Other contentions on merits of the impugned order were also raised. 11. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents, does not dispute the fact that there was a lock-down imposed by the Central and State Governments in the month of March, 2020; and that the petitioner was denied a personal hearing. 10. Other contentions on merits of the impugned order were also raised. 11. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents, does not dispute the fact that there was a lock-down imposed by the Central and State Governments in the month of March, 2020; and that the petitioner was denied a personal hearing. He also could not explain how the assessment made by the 2nd respondent for the period April, 2013 to January, 2014 was within limitation. 12. In our considered opinion, having regard to the fact that the assessment was being done for the period April, 2013 to June, 2017 in March, 2020, i.e., long after the tax period, the petitioner ought to have been provided a personal hearing by the 2nd respondent. 13. Also, in the impugned order there is no consideration of any submissions made by the petitioner in its reply dt.20.03.2020 sent to the 2nd respondent. 14. It is the duty of the 2nd respondent to deal with the contentions raised in the objections / reply dt.26.03.2020 filed by the petitioner, in particular, the plea of bar of limitation for the period April, 2013 to January, 2014, while passing the impugned order. 15. Therefore, not only on the ground of denial of personal hearing but also on the ground of non-consideration of the objections made by the petitioner, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the Assessment Order No.51864 dt.31.03.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent in Form VAT - 305 for the tax period April, 2013 to June, 2017 under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 is set aside; the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent; the 2nd respondent shall provide a personal hearing to the petitioner; the 2nd respondent shall consider the contentions raised by the petitioner including the plea of bar of limitation raised by the petitioner in the reply dt.26.03.2020, and also the documents filed by petitioner in support of its objections, and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.