Sri Balaji Granites And Metals vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the endorsement dated 09.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent was to be set aside. The Court found that the 2nd respondent had incorrectly taken the date of the order as 18.05.2023, whereas the original order was passed on 10.12.2022. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.551 dated 16.11.2023, making the appeal maintainable. Regarding the issue of the DIN number, the Court noted that this had been decided by the Supreme Court and the High Court in favour of taxpayers, and the appellate authority would follow those precedents. The matter was remanded back to the 2nd respondent to decide the case on merits after numbering the appeal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Balaji Granites And Metals, was aggrieved by an order of assessment dated 10.12.2022, passed by the 3rd respondent for the periods 2017-2018 to August 2020 and 2021-2022. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 03.11.2023. The 2nd respondent rejected the appeal at the admission stage on 09.08.2024, citing a delay of 78 days, and condoning only 30 days. The 2nd respondent calculated the delay by treating the date of the order as 18.05.2023. The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition, challenging both the rejection order and the original assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was maintainable given the delay, considering the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.551 dated 16.11.2023? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the original order was passed on 10.12.2022, before 31.03.2023. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.551, which extended the period for filing appeals up to 31.01.2024. The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent erroneously treated the order date as 18.05.2023, which was after the cutoff date of 31.03.2023, thus wrongly rejecting the appeal. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. 2. Whether the original assessment order is liable to be set aside on the ground of not containing a DIN number? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the original assessment order should be set aside for lacking a DIN number. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.