Ratnagiri Trading Co vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Ii

Held

The Court acknowledged the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal. However, it found sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to the petitioner's submission that the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 was not served on him but on his GST consultant, who subsequently died without disclosing the receipt of the order. The Court reckoned the petitioner's knowledge of the order from the date of the demand notice dated 20.01.2023. The Court held that the petitioner should be given liberty to file an appeal before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, within sixty days from 20.01.2023, subject to depositing 25% of the demanded tax within three weeks. The Tribunal was directed to consider the grounds of appeal, afford a hearing, and pass an appropriate order expeditiously. The issue of the stock deficit was considered a pure question of fact to be appreciated by the Tribunal.

Facts

The petitioner, a registered VAT dealer, is challenging an order dated 12.11.2021 by the 5th respondent, which confirmed a revision and a subsequent demand notice dated 20.01.2023 for unpaid tax of Rs.4,86,287/- for the period August 2012 to January 2017. The initial assessment order dated 05.05.2017 by the 1st respondent found a stock deficit of 11,179 bags of cement. An appeal to the 4th respondent resulted in a remand to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent dropped proceedings, showing NIL balance tax. However, the 5th respondent initiated revision proceedings, setting aside the appellate order. The petitioner claims the revision order was not served on him, but on his consultant who died before informing him. The petitioner learned of the order upon receiving the demand notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal, considering the circumstances of non-service of the impugned order? 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal should be condoned due to the non-service of the impugned order on the petitioner and the subsequent death of his consultant? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the writ petition is maintainable because the impugned order was not served on him, and he only came to know about it through the demand notice. He further argues that the delay in filing an appeal is attributable to the non-service of the order and the unfortunate demise of his consultant, who received the order but did not communicate it. The petitioner also maintains that his explanation for the stock deficit was not properly considered. Revenue's arguments: The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition on the ground that an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal.