IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.293, 4649, 4664, 5038, 5178, 5267, 6918, 6932, 6937 and 6982 of 2004 W.P.No.293 of 2004 : Between: M/s A.V.U.Engineers Pvt. Ltd., situated at A-15, A.P.I.E., Balanagar, Hyderabad, rep by its Managing Director, Mr.Karamchand Rana ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Dy.Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar Circle, Balanagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 16-10-2003 passed by the 1st respondent in G.I.No.R/585/2001 as illegal, unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 4649 of 2004 : Between: M/s.Manjunatha General Traders, Nallacheruvu, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District, rep., by its Proprietor Sri P.V.S.Anjaneyulu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh, N.R.Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur District, A.P. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Anantapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus directing the First Respondent Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T., in S.No.270/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the third respondent who is the present assessing authority of the petitioner to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T. and receive the Certificates to be filed by the petitioner and grant necessary relief according to Law Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 4664 of 2004 : Between: M/s.Sri Mahalakshmi Traders, Nallacheruvu, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur district, rep.by its Proprietor, Sri P.Nagesh Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T) Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankarbagh, N.R Pet Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur District A.P. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Anantapur District A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus directing the First respondent, Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the Petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T in S.No.266/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the Third respondent who is the present assessing authority of the Petitioner to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T and receive the Certificates to be filed by the Petitioner and grant necessary relief according to law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX W.P.No. 5038 of 2004 : Between: M/s Snehit Enterprises, Nallacheruvu , Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District, rep.by its Proprietor Sri P.Ramnath. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh N.R.Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur District. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Anantapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus direction the First Respondent Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the Petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 APGST in S.No.262/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of Limitation, or alternatively to direct the Third Respondent who is present assessing authority of the petitioner to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 APGST and receive the Certificates to be filed by the Petitioner and grant necessary relief according to law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 5178 of 2004 : Between: M/s. Sri Tirumala Srinivasa Traders, Gandlapenta, Gandlapenta Mandal, Ananthapur District, rep., by its Proprietor, Sri D. Nataraj. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner [CT] Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh, N.R. Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Ananthapur, A.P. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus directing the First Respondent, Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the Petitioner relating to the Assessment year 2000-2001 APGST in S.No.268/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the third respondent who is the present assessing authority of the petitioner to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 APGST and receive the Certificates to be filed by the Petitioner and grant necessary relief according to Law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 5267 of 2004 : Between: M/s.Sri Tirumala Srinivasa Traders, Gandlapenta, Gandlapenta Mandal, Anantapur District, rep., by its Proprietor Sri D.Nataraj. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh, N.R.Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur Dist.,A.P. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Anantapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus directing the First Respondent, Appellate Authority to take on file the appeal filed by the petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 C.S.T. in S.No.264/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the Third Respondent who is the present assessing authority of the petitioner to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 C.S.T., and receive the declaration forms to be filed by the petitioner and grant necessary relief according to law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 6918 of 2004 : Between: M/s. Sri Satyasai Baba Traders, Nallacheruvu, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District rep by Proprietor S. Rajagopal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh, N.R.Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur District, A.P 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Anantapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus directing the First Respondent, Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 C.S.T. in S.No.265/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the Third Respondent who is the present assessing authority of the petitioner to re-open the assessment for the Assessment year 2000-2001 C.S.T. and receive the declaration forms to be filed by the petitioner and grant necessary relief according to law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 6932 of 2004 : Between: M/s. Pawan Enterprises, Nallacheruvu, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri S. Radhkrihsna Murthy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T), Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh, N.R.Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur District, A.P. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Anantapur District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent, Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the Petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T in S.No.269/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the Third Respondent who is the present assessing authority of the Petitioner to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T. and receive the Certificates to be filed by the Petitioner and grant necessary relief according to Law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 6937 of 2004 : Between: M/s Pawan Enterprises, Nallacheruvu, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapur District, represented by its Proprietor, Sri S.Radha Krishna Murthy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh, N.R.Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur District. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus directing the First Respondent, Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the Petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 C.S.T. in S.No.271/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the Third Respondent who is the present assessing authority of the Petitioner to re-open the Assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 C.S.T. and receive the declaration forms to be filed by the Petitioner and grant necessary relief according to Law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES W.P.No. 6982 of 2004 : Between: M/s Sri Satyasai Baba Traders, Nallacheruvu, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapur District, represented by its Proprietor Sri S.Rajagopal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Division, D.No.43/253-D8, Sankalbagh, N.R.Pet, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus directing the First respondent, Appellate Authority to take on file the Appeal filed by the Petitioner relating to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T. in S.No.267/2003-2004 and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation, or alternatively to direct the third respondent who is the present assessing authority of the Petitioner to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 A.P.G.S.T. and receive the Certificates to be filed by the Petitioner and grant necessary relief according to Law Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY Writ Petition No.4649 of 2004 and Batch ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice S.Ananda Reddy) This batch of writ petitions are filed by the dealers, who are registered under the provisions of both the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the APGST Act’) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) and carrying on the business, aggrieved by the action of the first appellate authority in refusing to entertain the appeals on the ground that they are barred by limitation. The petitioners are, therefore, seeking writ of mandamus directing the first appellate authority to take the appeals on file and decide the same on merits without going into the question of limitation or alternatively to direct the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessments and receive the certificates to be filed by the petitioners and grant necessary relief in accordance with law. 2. All the petitioners have filed their returns for different assessment years, in pursuance of which, assessments were made by the assessing authorities. As the claims with reference to certain exemptions were not accepted by the Assessing Officer, all the petitioners have filed appeals before the first appellate authority. But those appeals were rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground that the appeals filed were barred by limitation, as they are filed with delay of more than thirty days, and therefore, the first appellate authority has no power, under the provisions of the Act, to condone the delay. Hence the present writ petitions assailing the said orders of the first appellate authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no justification for fixing the period of thirty days, for which the appellate authority was given the power to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The said restriction was imposed by way of an amendment to the provisions of Section 19 of the APGST Act, under which the first proviso was substituted by Act 8 of 1997 with effect from 4-1-1997. Prior to the said amendment, the appellate authority was having wide discretion without any limitation to condone the delay if he is satisfied that the dealer was prevented for sufficient reasons from filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The said powers were taken away by Act 8 of 1997, affecting the right of the petitioners. It is also contended that the wording of the first proviso shows that the appellate authority may, within a further period of thirty days, admit the appeal if he is satisfied that the dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. It is contended that there is no specific exclusion of the Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the said Act. If the provisions of the Limitation Act are made applicable, then it is for the appellate authority to condone the delay, without any restriction as was contained under the first proviso, in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to contend that by virtue of the said specific provision of the Limitation Act, the provisions of the said Act are made applicable in the absence of special exclusion of the provisions of the APGST Act. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority refusing to condone the delay on the ground of lack of power is devoid of merit and is liable to be set aside. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions. Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality, Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, State of Orissa and others v. ION Exchange India Ltd., Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey and Rekha Timber Depot v. D.C.T.O. (A.P.). 4. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for a direction to the Assessing Officer to receive the certificates as contemplated under Rule 12 (7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules, to reopen the assessments and pass fresh assessments granting relief after considering the ‘C’, ‘F’ and ‘H’ forms that are being filed. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the petitioners. According to him, the Amendment Act of 1997 was specifically brought in, to simplify and streamline the provisions relating to the admission of appeals after condonation of delay and when such enactment was made by the Legislature with specific purpose, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that such provisions are causing hardship. According to the learned Government Pleader, the right of appeal is a Statutory benefit conferred on the dealers and such benefit is circumscribed by the provisions contained therein and it is not open to the dealers to contend that the conditions imposed while conferring the right of appeal could not be applied. He also contended that prior to the enactment of Act 8 of 1997, the appellate authority was having wide discretion without any limit to condone the delay. As the same was causing undue delay in filing the appeals as well as in disposal of the same, the Legislature thought to streamline and regulate the procedure by simplifying it and accordingly brought the Amendment Act. When the Legislature brought this enactment with specific intention of reducing the discretionary powers of the appellate authority, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that such reduction of the appellate powers are in any way illegal. In fact, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Constitutional validity of the said amended provisions were already assailed before this Court and those provisions were upheld and when once such provisions were upheld as valid, it is not open to the petitioners again to raise another contention that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable which, if accepted, would nullify the Amendment Act, restoring to the very same old procedure giving unlimited discretionary power to the appellate authority to condone any amount of delay. He also contended that even in the absence of any specific exclusion, the scheme of the Act has to be looked into and if so looked, it would be clear that the Legislature brought the Amendment Act with a specific intention of excluding the application of any other period of limitation. He further contended that the Sales Tax is one of the modes of revenue to the State and if the proceedings are delayed for unlimited periods, it would cause serious impact on the State’s Exchequer, and therefore, the Amendment Act was brought in not only to streamline the appeals, but also to simplify the procedural aspects. He contended that the very same judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also make it clear that in order to consider the applicability of the Limitation Act, the scheme of the Act has to be looked into. It is further contended that the Act is self-contained Code, covering all the aspects and is being administered by the officers, who are instrumentalities of the State and not by the Courts. Therefore, there is no justification in seeking application of the provisions of the Limitation Act, and hence sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 6. From the above, the issue that falls for consideration is whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the proceedings under the provisions of the APGST Act. 7. Though there is variation to the prayer in the writ petitions and the contentions advanced, we proceed to decide the issue as contended. 8. Before proceeding to consider the issue, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provision i.e., Section 19 of the A.P.General Sales Tax Act, which reads that ‘any dealer objecting to any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority under the provisions of this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed.’ Proviso to Section 19 of the Act as it was prior to the Amendment Act and after the Amendment Act, reads thus. Before the Amendment Act : Provided that the appellate authority may admit an appeal preferred after the period of thirty days aforesaid, if he is satisfied that the dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. After the Amendment Act : Provided that the appellate authority may within a further period of thirty days admit the appeal preferred after the period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. 9. A perusal of the above clearly shows that prior to the amended proviso, inserted by Act 8 of 1997, the appellate authority was given unlimited discretion to condone the delay, if he is satisfied that the dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within a period of thirty days. But this unlimited discretionary power conferred on the appellate authority was restricted, confining such power to condone the delay upto a maximum period of thirty days by Act 8 of 1997. Even in such case, the appellate authority is entitled to admit the appeal if he is satisfied that the dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed limit. Even if the appellate authority is satisfied that the dealer was prevented for sufficient cause, it has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of thirty days. It would be proper to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons stated while passing the amended enactment. In fact, this amended enactment covers many other issues covering different provisions of the Act, which was taken up on the representations of various Traders Associations. While considering the said representations, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes suggested certain further amendments to the Act with a view to further simplify the procedure and streamline the provision relating to admission of appeals after condonation of delay and to allow self-assessment of dealers with a turnover of less than Rs.10-00 Lakhs, therefore, the amended enactment was brought. 10. From the above, it is clear that this enactment was intended to streamline and simplify the procedure relating to the admission of appeals after condonation of delay. From the provisions existing prior to the enactment and after the enactment of the Amendment Act, it is clear that the Legislature had intentionally brought the new provisions so as to curtail the unlimited discretionary powers of the appellate authority to condone the delay. 11. In the light of the above position, if the provisions of the Limitation Act are made applicable by virtue of Section 29 (2), the result would be that the provisions of the Amendment Act would become otiose and the old position would be restored, restoring the unlimited discretionary powers of the appellate authority. We do not think that the Courts are empowered to create such a situation, especially when the Constitutionality of the amended provisions in question are already upheld by this Court. 12. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel that by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the said Act are made applicable, and if so, Section 5 has to be applied for condoning the delay. It would be appropriate to refer to Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as under. Sec.29 Savings: (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 13. From the above provision, it is clear that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule under the Limitation Act, the provisions of