Gaddipati Venkateswara Rao vs. The Additional Commissioner (St) Appeals

The Court made the following order:

1 [ 3456 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) THUR AY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 1250 OF 2024 Between:

2 The Court made the following Order: {Per Hon ’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) The petitioner, challenging the Assessment Order respondent, filed respondent and the said authority by the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 has rejected the appeal the sole ground that the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the condonable period i.e., 56 days. Challenging the said order, the instant writ petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government NO.AD370323003178D dated 27.05.2023 passed by the 2 an appeal before the Additional Commissioner/1 nd on 02. Pleader for Commercial Tax-II.

We have considered the above respective submissions and perused the 05. material available on record. As submitted by the petitioner, the L' respondent has rejected the appeal 06. on the sole ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 56 days which was beyond the condonable period. Except that no other merits in the case of the petitioner were discussed. Be that it may, admittedly the GST appellate tribunal has not been constituted in terms of Sec. 112 of APGST Act 2017 to •

4 carry out the matter to the said Tribunal. Therefore, this writ petition ean be entertained by this Court. In Namyanapet Municipality Fs Superintendent of Central (74) G.S.T.L.296 (Telangana) when GST Registration was challenged the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority the sole ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period. In that context, the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana has observed Tax 2023 was cancelled and the same on thus: ■■S) we further find that the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances ofthe it would bejust andproper if the to respondent No. 1 to case, entire matter is remanded back reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 9) In the light of the above and without expressing any opinion on merit, we remand the matter back to the ifle of the respondent No.l to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say, when the respondent No. 1 hears the matter on remand, petitioner would be at liberty to submit the returns per the statute. as 10) Writ petition is accordingly disposed o.f

5 The above decision applies to the case of the petitioner as in the instant 08. case also the sole ground on which the appeal was rejected was because the same was filed beyond the condonable period. Learned Government Pleader no doubt argued that the facts in the case are slightly different because the Division Bench of Telangana High Court also considered the fact that the GST Registration of the petitioner therein was cancelled suomotu on the ground of non filing of returns and allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the concerned appellate authority. However, in the present case the main issue was that the appeal was rejected on the point that the same was filed beyond the condonable period. In our view, both the cases deal with same aspect i.e., condoning the delay that was occurred beyond condonable period. In that case the impugned Order challenged in Appeal was the cancellation of l Registration. Whereas, in the case on hand, the impugned order under C challenge in Appeal is the Assessment Order. However, the principle in the cited decision being the condonation of delay beyond the condonable period, the same can be made applicable to case on hand also. Similarly, in Writ Petition Nos. 17349 of 2023 and 42201 of 2022 a Division Bench of this High Court where one of us is a member, has considered similar issue and condoned

6 delay on terms and remitted the matter back to the 1^* appellate authority. In view of the above judgments, we consider it apposite to allow the writ petition, however, on imposing suitable terms.

Accordingly this writ petition is allowed by condoning the entire delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority on the condition of the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.20,000/- before the appellate authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. On such payment of costs, the appellate authority/1respondent shall restore the appeal and admit the same and pass necessary orders on merits after hearing both parties. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Nt)FFICER The Additional Commissioner (ST) Appeals, 19-10-100-3a New Indira Nagar Besides Sgs Arts College Road, Tirupati-517501. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), D.No . 11-2-18, Opposite to Railway Station, Sivalayam Street, Bapatia, - 522101. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh A P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Room No 33, 1®‘ Floor, TTD Administration Building, KT Road, Tirupati, Chittoor 517 501. One CC to Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri V.R.N.Prasanth, SC for TTD [OPUCl Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh fOUTl Two CD Copies • i j //// SECTIO To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

HIGH COURT 4 DATED:25/01/2024 .S !■ ■' A 4 H ORDER WP.No.1250 of 2024 I 15/3^ ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS