IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION Nos.10218 AND 10231 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION No.10218 OF 2008: Between: M/s.Tirumala Re-rolling Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director R.B. Srininvas Reddy …. Petitioner AND Commercial Tax Officer, Ranigunj Circle, Secunderabad, Begumpet Division & Others …. Respondents WRIT PETITION No.10231 OF 2008: Between: M/s.Tirumala Re-rolling Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director R.B. Srininvas Reddy …. Petitioner AND Commercial Tax Officer, Ranigunj Circle, Secunderabad, Begumpet Division & Others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION Nos.10218 AND 10231 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) The Writ Petition Nos.10218 and 10231 of 2008 are filed against the common order dated 08-01-2008 in A.R. Nos.434 and 433 of 2007, respectively, passed by the Chairman, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeals on the ground that they were barred by limitation. 2. The said appeals were filed against the orders of the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), A.P., Hyderabad in CCT’s Ref. No. L.III(2)/1501/2003/II and CCT’s Ref.No.L.III(2)/1501/2003-I, dated 04-06-2005. 3. Initially, the petitioner was assessed to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 vide proceedings dated 23-05-2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 to a tune of Rs.62,33,916/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority by his order dated 20-06-2001 set aside the order passed by the assessing authority and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to pass final assessment order in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent No.1 – Commercial Tax Officer passed final assessment order on 29-06-2001. 4. The petitioner further states that respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) by his proceedings dated 04- 06-2001 revised the orders of the appellate authority dated 20-06-2001 and also the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 29-06-2001 and restored the levy of tax of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal for the assessment year 1998-99 before respondent No.3 – A.P. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad bench. The tribunal through the impugned common order dated 08- 01-2008 rejected the admission of the appeal on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on Rule-58 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short ‘the APGST Rules”), argued that there is no proper service of the impugned order on the petitioner as the order was passed on 04-06- 2005 and that the petitioner came to know about the same only on 11- 05-2007, as such immediately he filed the appeals. It is also contended that the Tribunal is not correct in observing that the appeals are barred by limitation, and further the Tribunal has not considered whether there was proper compliance of Rule-58 of the APGST Rules or not. 6. On the other hand, the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes contended that there is compliance of Rule-58 of the APGST Rules as the notice was tried to be served on the assessee by fixing it on the notice board of the office of the Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry and also affixture at the last known address of the petitioner. 7. Since the lis resolves round Rule-58 of the APGST Rules, it is apt to reproduce the same, which reads as under: “58. The service on a dealer of any notice, summons, order or proceedings under the Act or under these rules may be effected in any of the following ways, namely:-- (a) by giving or tendering it to such dealer [x x x] or his manager or agent; or (b) if such dealer [x x x] or his manager or agent is not found by leaving it at his last known place of business or residence or by giving or tendering it to audit member of his family; or (c) if the address of such dealer [x x x] is known to the assessing authority, by sending it to him, by registered post; or [and if it is returned unserved, it shall be put on notice board of the office of the assessing authority or the notice board in the office of the Local Chamber of Commerce or Traders’ Association, and it shall be deemed that the said notice or summons or proceedings are served on the dealer and action shall be taken in pursuance thereof accordingly;] (d) if any or all of the modes aforesaid is not practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence.” 8. A perusal of the record, shows that the impugned order was passed on 04-06-2005 and the petitioner came to know about the same only on 11-05-2007, when attachment notice was served on the company and its existing Directors at Delhi. Then the petitioner made an application to respondent No.1 - CTO informing that no notice was served much less with the original order and requested to issue a copy of the same. After getting the certified copy of the impugned order, petitioner filed the appeals on 15-06-2007. 9. But, the respondents submitted that the impugned orders were served on the petitioner on 23-06-2005 by affixture at the last known address, on 27-06-2005 through registered post, on 23-05-2006 notice was again sent to the address of the petitioner and on 30-06- 2005 by affixture on the notice board of the office of the Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Hyderabad. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner company had been closed on 01-08-2000 and there was a change in the Board of Directors of the company with effect from 15-09-2003. Since the company was closed as lay back as on 01-08-2000, the petitioner could not inform about the same to the respondents. 11. In as much as there is no proper service of notice dated 04-06-2005 on the petitioner by the respondents, the finding of the tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded back. 12. Therefore, the common order dated 08-01-2008 in A.R. Nos.434 and 433 of 2007, respectively, passed by the Chairman, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal – respondent No.3, with a direction to take up the appeals on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law on merits. It is further directed that the interim orders passed by this Court on 26-12-2006 in W.P. No.28335 of 2008 shall continue, till the disposal of the appeals. 13. With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________ AUGUST 12, 2009. JUSTICE K.C. BHANU KTL