Shri Gaddipati Venkateswara Rao vs. The Additional Commissioner

Order Ref No. ZD371223010254Y dated 16.12.2023 in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner on 22.11.2023 on the ground that the Appeal filed beyond the time limit prescribed is arbitrary, without juri iction, unfair, unreasonable, unconstitutional, against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to various precedents laid down in the subject matter and violative of Article 14, 300A and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and prayed for condoning the delay in filing of the GST appeal, remand back the matter to the 1st Respondent for fresh adjudication of the Appeal filed by Petitioner based on merits. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent, to lift the Attachment dated 31.08.2023 of the Petitioners Bank Account in the State Bank of India, Guntur District and drop the recovery proceedings initiated vide notice dated 14.07.2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the recovery notice dated 08.09.2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent to the Petitioner’s customer M/s. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, directing to pay the total demand confirmed of Rs. 16,96,778/- tax, interest, and penalty to the Government, and internal instruction dated 17.09.2023 of M/s. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of Order Ref No. ZD3712230102118 dated 16.12.2023 in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner on 22.11.2023 and direct the 2nd Respondent not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner pursuant to that Order in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. ANIL BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI A SUMANTH, SC FOR TTD Counsel for the Respondents: VRN PRASANTH 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: 1252 OF 2024 Between:

2 The Court made the following Order: {Per Hon 'Me Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) The petitioner, challenging the Assessment Order respondent, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner/1 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., 58 days. Challenging the said order, the instant writ petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government No.AD370123000777A dated 25.05.2023 passed by the 2 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. context, the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana has observed thus: on 8) we further find that the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the it would bejust andproper if the entire matter is remanded back to respondent No.l reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. case, to 9) In the light of the above and without expressing any opinion on merit, we remand the matter back to the file 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.l hears the matter on remand, petitioner would be at liberty to submit the per the statute. 10) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of ” returns as 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 Registration. Whereas, in the case on hand, the impugned order under 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 f ( 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 parties. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall merits after hearing both on stand closed. M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// OFFICER To,

HIGH COURT DATED:25/01/2024 ORDER WP.No.1252 of 2024 ye o (,} 0 6 MAY 20211 itl .X % -3*, J ic. •.-tBWwatt* J- m ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS