Dismissed

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Apr 2024WP/2684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a statutory appeal in a GST matter. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and argued insufficient notice, but the court found the delay was beyond the condonable period and the cause stated was not sufficient.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders Vs the State of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010040132024

¶2

[3481]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,T H E TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2684/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Prad e sh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

1.VENKATA MURALID H AR M

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶15

1.GP FOR COMMERCI A L TAX (AP) The Court made the following:

¶16

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justi c e Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶17

Heard learned cou n sel for the petitioner and Sri S.A.V. S ai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for res p ondents.

¶18

Challenging the a s sessment order dated 28.04.2023 passed by respondent No.3 – the A s sistant Commissioner (State Tax), th e petitioner preferred the statutory appeal on 11.09.2023. The appeal was barred by

¶19

limitation and also beyond 14 days of the condonable period, which could not be condoned by the appellate authority under the statutory provisions. By the impugned order, the appeal has been rejected on the said ground.

¶20

From perusal of the memo of appeal, it is evident that the petitioner inter-alia raised a plea that the petitioner did not receive any notice prior to passing of the assessment order, dated 28.04.2023 which was alleged to have been received on 30.05.2023. The appeal was filed on 11.09.2023. A perusal of assessment order (Ex P2) shows that the petitioner had received notice dated 07.03.2023 and requested to file the written objections and also paid some tax amount on 27.03.2023 but the rest amount demanded vide notice was not paid. The final opportunity was provided to the petitioner and notice of personal hearing dated 17.04.2023 was also issued but the petitioner did not respond. Consequently, the order of assessment was passed.

¶21

With respect to the condonation of delay, it has been argued before us that the appeal could not be filed in time due to the death of the petitioner’s accountant. The date of death of the accountant has not been disclosed in the writ affidavit. On our specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accountant died on 09.08.2022, which is a date prior to passing of the assessment order. A notice was served to the petitioner prior to the order of assessment and the order of assessment was also served to the petitioner on 30.05.2023. Consequently, the cause which has been stated before us for delay in filing the appeal appears not to have any connection for delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority.

¶22

In our view the appellate authority has not committed any illegality or error of law by rejecting the appeal as it has no power under the statute to condone the delay beyond the condonable period. The delay in the present case was beyond condonable period.

¶23

We are of the further view that the cause as shown before us, is not a sufficient cause for the reasons mentioned herein above. Consequently, in the absence of any sufficient cause being shown to us, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned appellate order and to direct the appellate authority, as prayed, to decide the appeal on merits.

¶24

No case is made out for interference in the impugned order of the appellate authority.

¶25

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶26

No orders as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

Date: 23.04.2024 AG

210

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 2684/2024

¶34

Date: 23.04.2024 AG

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Associated Construction Company, Naidupeta, Nellore Dt. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. D. Viswanatha Reddy and Co. Vs State of A.P.

M/S. Sudalagunta Hotels Limited, Chittoor District Vs State of a.P., Rep by Its Sate Rep., Hyderabad

Sri Gogineni Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ayyappa Plastic Industries Vs the Assisstant Commissioner of State Tax

M/s.Indu Enterprises Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh