JUDGMENT 1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner assails the Assessment Order in AAO.No.38044, dt.27.03.2020, passed by 1st respondent for the period 2015-16 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. The petitioner is involved in manufacture and trade of 'Beedies', and is a registered dealer under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice on 04.09.2019 proposing to tax the turnovers pertaining to certain transactions at higher rate of tax of 14.5% alleging that the transactions are inter-State transactions, and are not supported by any documentary evidence / statutory forms. 4. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner contends that its representative appeared before the 1st respondent and submitted copies of its CST returns and a few sample invoices; and also submitted to the 1st respondent that the commodities sold by it, i.e., 'Beedies' are an exempted commodity in terms of Section 7 of the CST, 1956 read with Entry - 47 (b) of Schedule I to the Act and there was no requirement of submission of statutory forms for claiming exemption. According to petitioner, an opportunity of personal hearing was also sought and time to file objections was also sought; it did not receive any information or notice fixing the date of hearing or fixing the last date for submission of objections from the 1st respondent. The counsel for petitioner asserts that though the impugned order states that notices dt.16.11.2019 and 06.03.2020 were issued to petitioner, and the petitioner did not respond to the same, no such notices were ever served on petitioner. The petitioner contended that its representative approached the office of the 1st respondent in the last week of August, 2020, and that its representative was then informed that Notices were sent by e-mail. The counsel for petitioner contended that the impugned assessment order has been passed at the fag end of the limitation prescribed for passing the Assessment Order, ignoring that the commodity petitioner deals with is exempt from tax under Section 7 of the Act read with Entry 47-B of Schedule I to the Act. In fact, the impugned order, according to petitioner, does not contain any reasons for levy of CST on the petitioner. 5. In fact, the impugned order, according to petitioner, does not contain any reasons for levy of CST on the petitioner. 5. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, does not dispute that there is no provision in the Rules framed under the Act for service of notices through e-mail. He also does not dispute that the 1st respondent did not deal with the contention of petitioner that 'Beedies', the commodity which is being dealt with by petitioner in the course of its business, is exempt from tax under Section 7 read with Entry 47(b) of Schedule I to the Act. 6. There was a nation-wide lockdown on account of COVID-19 pandemic from 21.03.2020, and the petitioner received in April, 2020 the impugned Assessment Order dt.27.03.2020. 7. The counsel for petitioner contended that the delay in approaching the Court occurred on account of the lockdown which continued up to 2nd week of July, 2020. 8. A perusal of the impugned assessment order passed by the 1st respondent indicates that there are no reasons contained in the said order except that it is recorded that petitioner did not avail personal hearing and did not respond to the show-cause notice or the reminder notice dt.16.11.2019 or the final notice dt.06.03.2020. There is no consideration by the 1st respondent of the legal contention raised by the petitioner that the said commodity being dealt with by the petitioner in the course of its business is exempted from tax under Section 7 of the Act read with Entry 47(b) of Schedule I thereof and that there is no statutory requirement of submission of statutory forms for claiming exemption. It is not in dispute that there is no provision for service of notice on the assesses through e-mail, and it is not the case of the respondents that the alleged reminder notice dt.16.11.2019 and final notice dt.06.03.2020 were sent in the manner indicated in the Rules framed under the Act and were served on the petitioner. 9. Obviously, apprehending that the limitation prescribed for assessment in Sub-Rule 5-A of Rule 14-A of the CST Rules would expire making assessment for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016 barred, the 1st respondent had passed the impugned order in a hurry without considering the legal contention of petitioner and without mentioning any reasons. 10. 9. Obviously, apprehending that the limitation prescribed for assessment in Sub-Rule 5-A of Rule 14-A of the CST Rules would expire making assessment for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016 barred, the 1st respondent had passed the impugned order in a hurry without considering the legal contention of petitioner and without mentioning any reasons. 10. We are also satisfied that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice, and that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity to defend itself in the proceedings contended by the 1st respondent. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Assessment Order in AAO.No.38044, dt.27.03.2020, passed by the 1st respondent for the period 2015-16 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is set aside; and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; the petitioner is granted four (04) weeks' time to file objections to the show-cause notice received by it along with supporting material; the 1st respondent shall also provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner; and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law which shall be communicated by the 1st respondent. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.