Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010566032025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3559]
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT PETITION NO: 29395/2025
Between:
1. M/S R N A AND SONS, ADONI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR MR. R. NAZEER AHMED.S/O. R. ABDUL SALAM,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 4/1/2, ALUR ROAD, ADONI,
KURNOOL,KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-518301
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE APPELLATE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, TIRUPATI.
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, ADONI CIRCLE, ADONI
KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly
in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned endorsement of
16-01-2025 in Special Appeal No 289/2023-24/KNL of the Appellate
Additional Commissioner ST, Tirupati, rejecting the admission of appeal by
adopting the date of adjudication order contrary to mandatory requirement
2
RRR,J & SS,J
W.P.No.29395 of 2025
and levy of tax on RCM basis more than once on the ground that the same
the RCM paid by the Petitioner would not claimed as Input Tax Credit from
the tax payable on output and tax liability as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the
provisions of section 9(3) as well as Section 107 of the CGST/APGST Act
2017 and as sequitur remand the matter to the 2nd respondent appellate
authority for admission and disposal merits in accordance with the law and
grant
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
pleased to Stay all further proceedings arising out of the impugned
Endorsement of 16-01-2025 as also the proceedings dated 23-08-2023 of the
3rd respondent and I grant such other relief and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V J K KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
3
RRR,J & SS,J
W.P.No.29395 of 2025
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner which is registered under the G.S.T. Act, 2017,
was assessed to tax for the period 2020-2021, by an order of assessment,
dated 23.08.2023, passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by this Order, the
petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent, by way of a Special Appeal
No.289/2023-24/KNL, on 27.12.2023.
2.
The 2nd respondent, dismissed the Appeal, on 16.01.2025, holding that,
the Appeal has been filed with a delay of 34 days and that, the 2nd respondent
had power to condone a delay of only 30 days.
3.
The 2nd respondent, had held that, the assessment order was passed,
on 23.08.2023 and the due date for filing of the Appeal, is 23.11.2023. He
calculated a delay of 34 days, on the ground that, the Appeal was actually
filed, on 23.11.2023. He further held that he had power to condone delay of
only 30 days. The 2nd respondent, had also held that, as the delay was 34
days, the Appeal was not maintainable.
4.
Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner has approached this Court,
by way of the present Writ Petition.
5.
Dr. M. V. K. Moorthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw the
attention of this Court to the grounds of the Appeal filed by the petitioner
before the 2nd respondent. In these grounds of Appeal, the petitioner had
4
RRR,J & SS,J
W.P.No.29395 of 2025
stated that, the Order was communicated to the petitioner only, on
12.09.2023.
6.
He would also submit that, the 2nd respondent, without considering the
said fact, had proceeded, on the ground that, the period of limitation was to be
calculated from the date of the Order and not from the date of communication
of the Order.
7.Dr. M. V. K. Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would also draw the attention of this Court to Section 107 (1) of the G.S.T. Act, which states that an Appeal has to be filed within three (03) months from the date on which the decision or Order, has been communicated to such person.
8.In view of the language of the Section 107 (1), the period of limitation for the filing of an Appeal under Section 107, would commence only from the date of communication and not from the date of the Order.
9.In the circumstances, it was incumbent on the 2nd respondent to consider the question of when the order had been served on the petitioner and to calculate the period of limitation from the said date. No such exercise was carried out by the 2nd respondent.
10.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal, dated 16.01.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent, in Special Appeal No.289/2023-24/KNL and remanding the matter back to the 2nd respondent for a proper decision on the matter, after considering the period of limitation from the date of communication of the Order.
11.Needless to say, all issues are left open and it would also be open to the petitioner to raise all relevant issues before the 2nd respondent.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
Date:29.10.2025 KPV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT PETITION No:29395 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
KPV
