(1.) The petitioner is the son of one Sri Alapati Jalaiah. The said A. Jalaiah died on 29-3-96. Late A. Jalaiah was carrying on business as a proprietory concern from 1-12-1974 in the premises belonging to the 3rd respondent. After the death of A. Jalaiah, the petitioner obtained fresh registration certificate from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. The 3rd respondent objected for the grant of the registration in favour of the son of late A. Jalaiah. Overruling the said objection the 1st respondent granted registration on 10-4-1996. Aggrieved by the same the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes directed the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to cancel the registration certificate issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition.
(2.) The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 19 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act only a dealer is entitled to file an appeal and the 3rd respondent being not the dealer is not entitled to file the appeal, and therefore the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. In support of his contention he also relied on a judgment of mis Court in "Smt. Samayamanihula Srihari and another vs. C.T.O.".
(3.) The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that when he raised an objection before the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer not to grant registration in favour of the son of the deceased late Sri A. Jalaiah, overruling the objection the registration is granted and therefore, he is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 19 of the Act and consequently the appeal filed by him is maintainable and the order is within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Appellate Commissioner for Commercial Taxes.