Allowed

K v. Sai Ram v Commercial Tax Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Sept 2023WP/22996/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition and stay application filed by a taxpayer challenging a tax assessment order. The court condoned a 987-day delay in filing an appeal, imposing conditions including a fixed deposit and a 75% deposit of disputed tax, before remitting the matter to the appellate authority for disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed; impugned order set aside; delay condtioned on petitioner depositing Rs. 5,000 with high Court Legal Services Committee and 75% of disputed tax within two weeks; appeal to be admitted by

K v Sai Ram Vs Commercial Tax Officer — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

8 i
to la

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 22996 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

K. V. Sai Ram, S/o. Mr.K.Pydi Setty, Aged about 49 years Residing at 6-693/A Above Lie office, Gajapathinagarm -535270 Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

Commercial Tax Officer, M.G. Road (South) circle Vizianagaram.

¶15

Chief Commissioner of State Taxes, (State GST) Vijaya .Elite, Kunchanapalli service road Tadepalli Mangalagiri Highway Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

The AP State Road Transport, Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director

¶17

Vijayawada.

¶18

The Appellate Additional Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada Division, Moghalrajpuram, Opp. Siddhartha College, Vijayawada. Andhra Pradesh.

¶19

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent (appellate authority) in rejecting the appeal in limini without going into merits filed against the certified copy of assessrnent order passed by the 1®* respondent dated 30.09.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and setting aside both the orders or consequently direct the 2"^ respondent to hear and dispose the appeal on merits.

¶22

■ -I

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.1,88,335/- pursuant to the impugned order of the 1’* Respondent, dated 30.9.2020 for the tax period 201415, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 4 & 5 : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI M. SOLMON RAJU, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND

¶29

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.22996 of 2023

¶31

ORDER: (Per Hon 'ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)

¶32

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the 4*’’ respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the Assessment Order dated 30.09.2020 for the period 2014-15 (from October 2014) to 2016-17 passed by the respondent on the ground that the delay in filing appeal was beyond the cohdonable period.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax.

¶34

As. can be seen, the delay in filing of appeal is 987 days. Learned counsel for petitioner though initially argued that the copy of the order which was served on his office was received by some of the staff and as it was during Covid period, the recipient of the copy of the order has not promptly placed before the petitioner to

¶35

prefer an appeal immediately, however, admitted that there are some laches in preferring the appeal in time which caused the delay

¶36

»Ba««a9i

¶37

¶38

of 987 days. Learned counsel would submit that there are arguable

¶39

points in the appeal and if the petitioner is not given an opportunity

¶40

to prefer the appeal, he would lose such a valuable opportunity. On

¶41

this ground,, learned counsel prays to condone the delay on submission that the petitioner will comply with any conditions are imposed.

¶42

Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition on the ground that the delay is huge and there was no bonafide and sufficient causes to condone the delay.

¶43

As can be seen, the delay is admittedly 987 days, of-course the reason shown by the petitioner is that the impugned Assessment Order was passed on 30.09.2020 i.e., during the Covid period and the staff who received the order had not promptly placed before the petitioner to go for appeal against the said order. It is true that the Assessment Order dated 30.09.2020 was passed during the Covid19 pandemic phase. However, that alone cannot be a ground to overcome the huge delay of 987 days. The petitioner should have acted diligently and instructed the staff to place before him the

¶44

. 3

¶45

****

¶46

important communications received in the office, so as to take prompt action. In essence, though the order was passed during the Covid period, there are some laches on the part of the petitioner also.

¶47

Be that as it may', we agree with the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that, if opportunity to prefer the appeal is not given by stifling his right to file appeal on technical ground, he will .be put to hardship. Therefore, we incline to condone the delay.

¶48

however on imposing.terms;

¶49

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the 4*** respondent is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned on condition of petitioner depositing Rs.5,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee and also make a deposit of 75% of the disputed tax less the amount if any already deposited by him, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, upon which, the 4* respondent shall admit the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously. No costs.

¶50

¶51

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in

¶52

this case shall stand closed.

¶53

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

^SECTION OFFICER

¶56

The Commercial Tax Officer, M.G. Road (South) circle Vizianagaram. 2. 2. The Chief Commissioner of State Taxes, (State GST) Vijaya Elite, Kunchanapalli service road Tadepalli Mangalagiri Highway Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh

¶57

The Managing Director, AP State Road Transport, Corporation, Vijayawada. 4. The Appellate Additional Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada Division, Moghalrajpuram, Opp. Siddhartha College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶58

The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department,State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi; Guntur District.

¶59

One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. OneCCtoSriM. Soloman Raju, SC for APSRTC (OPUC) 9. Two C.D. Copies Cnr

**** wr.

X.-. ’

HIGH COURT

DATE0:06/09/2023

ORDER

WP.No.22996 of 2023

¶66

331<l|»

¶67

g 2 3 SEP Eia

¶68

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

K v. Sai Ram v Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K v. Sai Ram v Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ippili Ananda Rao Vs Commercial Tax Officer

State Bank of India, Ramachandrapuram Branch, Vs Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Sastry Bhavan

M/S. Kalyana Chakravarthy Rice Mill Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Sri Varsha Food Products India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

B. Padmavathi, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Seshamma Kandra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh