IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4431 of 2002 Between: Midwest Granite Private Limited, rep. by it's Chairman, Mr. K.Raghava Reddy, 6-3-802, 1st Floor, Zainab Commercial Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad -500 016. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Commissionr of Commercial Tax (Legal) O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 5 The Commercial Tax Officer, Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Direction or order especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Application filed by the Petitioner, under the provisions of A.P. Sales tax Settlement of Disputed Scheme, 2001 before the Respondents as valid maintainable and consequently direct the respondents to accept the settlement application and pass such other orders(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.S.RAVI Counsel for the Respondents :SPL GP FOR TAXES Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4434 of 2002 Between: Reliance Granite Private Ltd., rep.by it's Managing Director, Mr.G.Reavindra Reddy, 6-3-802,1st Floor , Zainab Commercial Cimplex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad- 500-016. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P.,Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Legal) O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner(CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 5 The Commissioner Tax Officer, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, direction or order especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Application filed by the Petitioner, under the provisions of A.P. Sales tax Settlement of Disputed Scheme,2001 before the Respondents as valid maintainable and consequently direct the Respondent to accept the settlement application and pass such other order or orders as this may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.S.RAVI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : . Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK} COMMON ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Parkash Rao): Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents. Since a common question arises in both the writ petitions, at their request, these matters have been taken up for disposal, by this common order. 2. The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus contending inter alia, that the applications in Form-I, filed by them, under A.P. Sales Tax Settlement of Disputes Scheme, 2001 (for short ‘the Scheme’), before the third respondent is validly maintainable. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of both the writ petitions, are that against the orders passed initially, by the 5th respondent, for the assessment year 1993-94, whereby the petitioners were assessed to tax, they filed appeals before the 4th respondent herein disputing the said tax amount. There is no dispute with regard to the filing of the appeals. 4. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the appeals, the ordinance under the Scheme came into force by way of notification in A.P. Gazette on 17-07-2001, according to which, as the appeals are pending and no orders have been passed against the petitioners, they would be entitled to waiver of 50% of tax apart from all benefits in regard to the interest and penalties levied etc. However, the respondents have not considered the applications of the petitioners, and therefore, no orders have been passed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, these two writ petitions. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, on behalf of all the respondents, it is stated that the appeals filed by the petitioners were already rejected as long back as on 10-11-1997 and therefore, it cannot be treated that the appeals are pending. Hence, the benefits under the ordinance of the scheme cannot be extended to the petitioners. After referring to the chequered events, ultimately in para 10 of the counter affidavits, it is stated that the appeals were disposed of in the year 1997. However, as seen from the affidavits filed by the petitioners respectively, it can be seen that there is no specific date mentioning about the service of the said order on the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even taking into account the statement made in the counter affidavit about the disposal of the appeals on 10-11-1997, even till the date of filing the writ petitions, the orders of the 4th respondent have not been served. Hence, it cannot be said that the appeals were disposed of. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Taxes submits that the appeals have not been heard. The petitioners cannot plead any ignorance and say that the applications are validly maintainable. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the only question which has to be considered is as to whether the petitioners can avail the benefits under the Scheme. 9. There is no dispute in regard to the orders passed by the 5th respondent concerning the assessment of tax and filing of appeals against the said assessment by the petitioners. Now the questions that have to be considered are as to whether the said scheme can be extended to the petitioners and whether the appeals filed by the petitioners are pending? 10. However, the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the appeals were disposed of on 10-11-2007 and therefore, it cannot be extended. 11. As already mentioned, the counter affidavit is silent about the date of service of the orders. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said orders have not seen the light of the day and hence, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. 13. In view of the fact that no evidence was adduced by the respondents to show as to how and when such orders were passed and communicated to the petitioner, it has to be necessarily treated that the appeals are pending, and therefore, the petitioners can avail the benefits under the aforesaid scheme. In view of the same, the applications filed before the 3rd respondent, need to be considered in terms there of and the benefit has to be extended to the petitioners. 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the applications, on merits, in accordance with law, and dispose of the same, after treating them as having been filed validly and also treating that the appeals were pending on the relevant date. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASHRAO ________________________ March 10, 2008 JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU Kvr