Usha Enterprises Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

USHA ENTERPRISES, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, GSTIN NO. 37AAGFU8477R1ZX, HAVING ITS REGISTERED PLACE OF BUSINESS AT GROUND FLOOR, 1-112/1, MADHURAWADA, SAGARNAGAR, RUSHIKONDA APIIC, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530045, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.MARAM JAGADEESH, S/O. LATE RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST FAC, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ST), VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, BHEEMILI CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM-1 DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.17704 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, BHEEMILI CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM-1 DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶25

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.17704 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶29

Writ Petition No:17704 of 2026

¶30

The Court made the following Order: (per NJS,J)

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing respondents.

¶32

Petitioner/proprietary concern, is a registered dealer under the A.P.G.S.T Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 holding GSTIN No.37AAGFU8477R1ZX. Respondent No.3 passed an Assessment Order dated 18.03.2025 for the tax period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 and raised a demand of Rs.11,75,523/- and Form GST DRC-07. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the impugned order was neither physically served nor was it communicated through any mode as contemplated under Section 169(1) of the Act to the petitioner, that the petitioner had no knowledge about passing of the said order. He submits that Proprietor was admitted in hospital and was under continuous medical treatment during the relevant period i.e., from March, 2025 till June, 2025. Further that as the proprietor alone has access to the GST common portal, an appeal could not be filed within the statutory period against the Assessment Order dated 18.03.2025. He submits that however, petitioner filed an appeal with delay of about 17 days and Appellate Authority/respondent No.2 vide

¶34

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.17704 of 2026

¶35

4

¶36

Endorsement dated 23.08.2025 rejected the appeal, at the stage of admission, opining that he has no authority to condone the delay beyond the period (30) days prescribed under the Act.

¶37

He submits that the impugned Endorsement is unsustainable, as the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal without examining the relevant aspect as to “Whether the reason for delay is justified or not?”, but only placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P No.13362 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024, etc.

¶38

Learned counsel submits that in similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that as the petitioner is completely bed ridden, writ petition could not be filed immediately after receipt of impugned Endorsement dated 23.08.2025. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks appropriate orders by setting aside the Endorsement in question.

¶39

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, while refuting the said contentions, submits that Endorsement of respondent No.2 and the observation made therein for rejecting the appeal is valid, legal and warrants no interference by this Court. He also submits that in fact, petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the impugned Endorsement. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.17704 of 2026

¶41

5

¶42

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

¶43

At the outset, as seen from the impugned Endorsement, it is discernible that the learned Appellate Authority has not examined the matter as to “Whether sufficient cause exists for condonation of delay?”. Appellate Authority‟s order, it is clear, not on basis of independent examination, but on mere reliance on an earlier decision. Applicability of the said case to the present fact situation was not appreciated.

¶44

At this stage, though learned Government Pleader made submissions to the effect that petitioner has a remedy of appeal, this Court keeping in view the statutory limitations, is of the opinion that the remedy of appeal may not be efficacious. Be that as it may.

¶45

In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mastek Engineering Private Limited, (referred to supra), was pleased to condone the delay of 73 days, however, subject to payment of costs by observing that „appeal is a valuable statutory right‟. The observation of the learned Division Bench reads as follows:

¶46

“11. The impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice requires condonation of the delay and adjudication of the matter on merit by Appellate

¶47

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.17704 of 2026

¶48

6

¶49

Authority. The appeal is a valuable statutory right. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/-….”

¶50

In the light of the above decision and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are inclined to set aside the impugned Endorsement dated 23.08.2025 and condone the delay, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. Appellate Authority, on payment of costs, shall consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Costs of Rs.25,000/shall be deposited before the Appellate Authority within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶51

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶53

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶54

Date:03.07.2026 Ksj

¶55

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Usha Enterprises v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Enterprises v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S VenkateshHotha Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Bharat Electronics M C Unit Employees Co-op. Credit Soc Ltd., Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Sahasra Consultants Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Siva Electricals Vs the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

M/s Goodwill Agencies (Partnership firm) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Goodwill Agencies (Partnership firm) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh