ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. Writ Petition Nos. 6033 of 2020 and 6130 of 2020 are filed by the petitioner challenging the Assessment Order dated 10.05.2019 and consequential penalty order dated 04.07.2019 respectively passed by 1st respondent for the period April, 2014 to June, 2017 under AP VAT Act, 2005. 2. The challenge is made on the main ground that no pre assessment show cause notices were issued to the petitioner and best assessment judgment was passed by the 1st respondent by violating the principles of natural justice. 3. Respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petitions inter alia contending that Form VAT– 304 intimation of audit as per AP VAT Act, 2005 was issued to the petitioner through registered post with acknowledgment due to the business address of the petitioner but the same was returned back unserved. Thereafter Form VAT 310 was issued to the dealer to produce books of accounts for the tax period April, 2013 to June, 2017 through registered post with acknowledgment due but the same was also returned unserved. The dealer neither filed any letter nor produced books of accounts. The dealer has not filed any letter in the office intimating change of its business address. Further, notices were also issued to the dealer on 16.05.2018, 18.07.2018 30.08.2018 and 19.12.2018 through registered post with acknowledgement due to produce the books of accounts, purchase and sale bills and other connected records, failing which best judgment assessment shall be made. However, the dealer did not respond to those notices. Therefore, basing on the record available in the office, audit was conducted for the period from June, 2014 to June, 2017 as per AP VAT Act, 2005 and having come to know that willful evasion of tax has been made by the dealer best judgment assessment was made and liability of tax was fixed at Rs.1,71,64,520/- and Assessment Order was passed and thereafter consequential penalty order was also passed. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the counter averments and stated that the petitioner sent letter dated 30.10.2017 stating that he closed down the business and in that view the letters of intimation sent by the respondents were not received by him. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Srinivasa Rao and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for respondents. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Srinivasa Rao and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Srinivasa Rao argued that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture and trading of cotton oil seeds and cotton products and he was regularly submitting his VAT returns and paying the taxes and while so, due to financial constrains he closed his business and left the Guntur for Hyderabad in search of a job and since he had no proper address for communication, he informed the 1st respondent by letter dated 30.10.2017 about these facts and mentioned his cell No.9391301116 in the said letter and requested to communicate to the said number. Learned counsel would submit that the 1st respondent received the said letter on 30.10.2017 as the copy of the letter bears the office stamp of 1st respondent. In spite of knowing that the petitioner was not doing business from the earlier office address at Guntur, the 1st respondent unjustly claimed to have sent communication regarding his proposal to conduct audit with an instruction to produce books of accounts under several registered posts to his earlier business address which is a futile exercise. Learned counsel would submit that he filed a copy of the letter dated 30.10.2017 along with a memo dated 02.05.2023 and the same may be perused and considered. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader vehemently argued that the 1st respondent did not receive any communication from the petitioner vide the alleged letter dated 30.10.2017 as the inward register of office of the 1st respondent do not bear any entry to that effect. He would argue that if really his office received any such letter, certainly it would have been entered in the inward register which is a normal practice in every public office and private establishment. Therefore, the copy of the letter dated 30.10.2017 may not be given credence by this Court. The office stamp on the said letter also may not be taken into consideration. Learned Government Pleader thus argued that since the petitioner did not respond to the number of letters sent by the 1st respondent, he was constrained to pass the impugned Assessment Order and consequential penalty order which are perfectly valid. 8. The point for consideration is whethere there are merits in the writ petitions to allow? 9. Learned Government Pleader thus argued that since the petitioner did not respond to the number of letters sent by the 1st respondent, he was constrained to pass the impugned Assessment Order and consequential penalty order which are perfectly valid. 8. The point for consideration is whethere there are merits in the writ petitions to allow? 9. POINT: The nub of the case is whether the petitioner sent communication dated 30.10.2017 to 1st respondent informing about the closure of his business and in spite of the same the 1st respondent casually sent notices to the petitioner instructing him to produce books of accounts and to attend the assessment proceedings and thereby the principle of natural justice of Audi alteram partem was vitiated. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the copy of the letter dated 30.10.2017 filed by the petitioner along with memo. It shows that the petitioner addressed a letter to the 1st respondent informing that due to his personal reasons and financial troubles, he was going to close his business and further, his bank loan account became NPA and therefore he left Guntur for Hyderabad in search of a job and he was not having proper address for communication and hence the Department may communicate with him through the mobile No.9391301116. This is the gist of the letter. The copy of the letter bears the stamp of office of the 1st respondent dated 30.10.2017. Learned Government Pleader argued that since the inward register of the office of 1st respondent do not contain an entry regarding the receipt of the controversial letter, the said letter may not be believed and the stamp is concerned, it was fabricated. Learned counsel for the petitioner while avouching the genuineness of the letter and the stamp, would submit that by fabrication of the letter as alleged by the Government Pleader, the petitioner will not be totally exonerated from the tax liability for the relevant period and at best this Court may order the 1st respondent to conduct assessment afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. On the other hand, if it is established that the petitioner fabricated the disputed letter, the petitioner has to face the penal consequences also and as the relative disadvantage is grave to the petitioner, he will not venture to fabricate the letter. We find logic and some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, if it is established that the petitioner fabricated the disputed letter, the petitioner has to face the penal consequences also and as the relative disadvantage is grave to the petitioner, he will not venture to fabricate the letter. We find logic and some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. If the petitioner fabricated the letter dated 30.10.2017 and made the Court believe the same, he will not be exonerated from the tax liability but at best this Court will direct the 1st respondent to conduct the assessment proceedings afresh since his earlier Assessment Order was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, if duplicity of the petitioner is exposed, he will be liable for penal consequences also. Therefore, we are of the view that the letter dated 30.10.2017 is a genuine one. The office of the 1st respondent by mistake might have omitted to make inward entry of the said letter. The net result is that the petitioner had no occasion to know about the notices issued by the 1st respondent and Assessment Order passed by him. Thus, we are of the view that there was a casuality of principles of natural justice. Hence we deem it apposite to set aside the Assessment Order and consequential penalty order and direct the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment proceedings by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the said proceedings. This can be ordered by directing the petitioner to deposit a suitable amount of the impugned tax to show his bonafides. 11. Hence we deem it apposite to set aside the Assessment Order and consequential penalty order and direct the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment proceedings by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the said proceedings. This can be ordered by directing the petitioner to deposit a suitable amount of the impugned tax to show his bonafides. 11. Accordingly, Writ Petition Nos.6033 of 2020 and 6130 of 2020 are allowed and the impugned Assessment Order dated 10.05.2019 and consequential penalty order dated 04.07.2019 respectively passed by 1st respondent are set aside and 1st respondent is directed to issue pre-assessment show cause notices to the petitioner to the address to be furnished by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of this order and conduct assessment proceedings afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his objections/reply along with his records and afford an opportunity of hearing to him and pass assessment order afresh on merits in accordance with governing law and rules on the condition of petitioner depositing 20% of the demanded tax of the impugned Assessment Order within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the Writ petitions shall stand dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.