JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Assessment Order AAO.No.16379 dt.26.02.2020 passed by the 4th respondent imposing penalty of Rs.28,15,329/- on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein is a partnership firm and is carrying on business of construction of commercial and residential buildings. 3. The partnership firm is registered under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of the 4th respondent. 4. The petitioner contends that it had filed on-line Form VAT - 250 on 24.02.2016 before the 4th respondent in compliance of Rule 17(4)(b) of TVAT Rules as it had opted for the composition scheme under the said Act provided in Section 4(7)(d) read with Rule 17(4)(b). 5. On 18.10.2019, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had not affected the sale of the flats / commercial space, and that the petitioner did not use the goods for the purpose for which they were purchased under the C.S.T. Act, 1956. 6. In the said show-cause notice, the 4th respondent alleged 'misuse' of the 'C' Forms' by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that due to adverse situation prevalent in the market, the petitioner could not affect any sales of the flats he had constructed though it obtained Occupancy Certificate after completion of the construction owing to lack of buyers due to demonetization and also on account of introduction of G.S.T. 7. According to the petitioner, it purchased a portion of the building material under the C.S.T. Act for use / incorporation in the Works Contract (i) during 2016-17 amounting to Rs.94,98,664/- and (ii) in the year 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) amounting to Rs.34,45,380/- as per the Certificate of Registration issued to it under Section 8(3) of the Act; and even the 4th respondent had confirmed the utilization of the goods purchased for construction at concessional rate of tax under the C.S.T. Act. 8. The petitioner gave a reply to the show-cause notice dt.18.10.2019 on 28.11.2019 and specifically sought for a personal hearing before any order is passed with reference to the said showcause notice. 9. But without giving any personal hearing, as sought by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed under Section 10-A of the Act imposing penalty of Rs.28,15,329/- on the petitioner . 10. 9. But without giving any personal hearing, as sought by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed under Section 10-A of the Act imposing penalty of Rs.28,15,329/- on the petitioner . 10. The counsel for petitioner contended that it is the duty of the 4th respondent to provide a personal hearing when it is sought and relied on a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Madhava Hi-Tech Cold Storage (P) Limited vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Registrations) Benz Circle, Vijayawada and another, (2002) 127 STC 469 . 11. A reading of the said judgment indicates that it is incumbent on the part of the authority levying penalty in lieu of prosecution under Section 10-A of the CST Act, 1956 to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee so that the assessee would be in a better position to place all relevant material, though a reply had been filed. 12. This legal position is not disputed by Sri J. Anil Kumar, special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents. 13. Therefore, since the 4th respondent had not given a personal hearing to the petitioner as he was required to do in view of above decision which is binding on this Court, the penalty order in A.A.O.No.16379 dt.26.02.2020 passed by the 4th respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration. The 4th respondent is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.