JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the assessment order dt.13-07-2020 passed by the 1st respondent under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') for the period 2014-15. 2. Petitioner is a firm registered as a dealer on the rolls of the 3rd respondent under the Act and is engaged in the activities of rice milling and trading of rice and paddy. According to the petitioner, for the period 01-04-2014 to 31-03-2015, it had filed its monthly Tax Returns and disclosed the sales turnovers. 3. While the nationwide lockdown was in force due to Covid-19 pandemic, a show cause notice dt.09-04-2020 was issued by the 1st respondent proposing to levy VAT of Rs.59,58,480/-. It was mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner did not file information such as books of accounts and tax invoices relating to input tax credit claimed by it and the input tax credit was proposed to be disallowed. It was also indicated that certain exempted sales were sought to be taxed by the 1st respondent by levying a higher rate of tax and allowed at a gross profit on the purchase value of the goods in order to arrive at the sale turnover before levying tax at the higher rate. 4. Petitioner contends that in reply thereto, it filed few invoices, audited balance sheets and detailed statement pertaining to the claim of the input tax credit, statement of VAT paid apart from Income Tax returns for the period 2014-15 before the 1st respondent on 22-06-2020. 5. It contended that owing to lockdown, it could not get in touch with its Sales Tax Consultant to prepare and file written objections and furnish other relevant information required by the 1st respondent and that it had requested the 1st respondent orally for adjournment on the ground that its Sales Tax Consultant was not available and to provide personal hearing. 6. But without giving such an opportunity, the impugned assessment order was passed on 13-07-2020 by the 1st respondent determining the under declared tax at Rs.90,50,725/- much more than Rs.59,58,480/- proposed in the show cause notice. 7. 6. But without giving such an opportunity, the impugned assessment order was passed on 13-07-2020 by the 1st respondent determining the under declared tax at Rs.90,50,725/- much more than Rs.59,58,480/- proposed in the show cause notice. 7. Petitioner contends that it is not open to the 1st respondent to deny opportunity for personal hearing and proceed to do assessment during the lockdown when petitioner's Sales Tax Consultant was not available and the petitioner was disabled from preparing and filing written objections and furnishing other relevant information which would be necessary to make the assessment, and there has been a violation of principles of natural justice by 1st respondent. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner also contends that it is not open to 1st respondent to make a determination that tax payable is Rs.90,50,725/- because this was not proposed in the show cause notice issued by 1st respondent where only Rs.59,58,480/- was proposed to be levies as tax. It is also contended that 1st respondent failed to give credit to Rs.28,82,848/-, which had been paid by petitioner towards VAT during the said period. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that copies of challans in support of payments made by petitioner, though submitted before the 1st respondent, were not even considered by the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order. 10. According to the petitioner, the assessment had to be completed under Section 29(3) of the Act within 4 years from the last date of filing the return for a particular month; that the assessment order was finalized on 13-07-2020 for the tax period 2014-15, after the said assessment was barred by limitation; and the Amendment to Section 21(3) of the Act which was brought into force w.e.f. 17-06-2017 by way of Act 26 of 2017 dt.02-12-2017 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner though under the said Amendment, time for completing assessment was enhanced to 6 years. 11. Sri J.Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents does not dispute that there was nationwide lockdown in the month of April, 2020 and it continued upto 01-07-2020, and severe restrictions on movement of people were imposed by the State as well as Central Government to prevent and control the spread of Covid-19 pandemic. 12. 11. Sri J.Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents does not dispute that there was nationwide lockdown in the month of April, 2020 and it continued upto 01-07-2020, and severe restrictions on movement of people were imposed by the State as well as Central Government to prevent and control the spread of Covid-19 pandemic. 12. Naturally during the period between the date of issuance of show cause notice dt.09-04-2020 and June, 2020 and 30-06-2020, it would have been difficult for the petitioner to obtain the services of Sales Tax Consultant, have access to material documents such as invoices etc., to properly defend itself against the proposal made by 1st respondent in the show cause notice dt.09-04-2020. 13. We are therefore of the opinion that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice because petitioner could not file objections to the show cause notice on account of non-availability of its Sales Tax Consultant, and even a personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner though such personal hearing was sought by the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned assessment order No.57158 dt.13-07-2020 passed by 1st respondent for the tax period 2014-15 under the Act is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; petitioner is granted four (04) weeks time from today to file objections and supporting material before the 1st respondent opposing the proposed levy in the above show cause notice; the 1st respondent shall provide a personal hearing to the petitioner; the petitioner is entitled to raise all contentions including plea of bar of limitation before the 1st respondent; and 1st respondent shall then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. No costs. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.