IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18500 of 2008 Between: M/s. Indian Tractor Agencies, Stadium Road, Guntur 522003, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Abdul Gaffoor. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Lalapet Circle, Guntur. 2 The Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, D.NO.50-50-30/12(2), Meghana Towers, Opp: Gurudwara Bus Stop, Visakhapatnam- 530013. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order direction to set aside the order dated 20.07.2007 passed in T.A.NO.453 of 2003 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench and restore the appeal in T.A.No.453 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for hearing of the appeal on merits along with T.A.No.446 of 2003 pertaining to tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order dated 20.7.2007 made in TA No. 453 of 2003 by the second respondent and to restore the said appeal to be heard along with TA No. 446 of 2003 on merits, for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of sale of tractor spares and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The ﬁrst respondent has completed the assessment for the year 1999-2000 and determined the tax payable at Rs.10,43,665/-, after inspection of the petitioner premises on 2.3.2000. The ﬁrst respondent also issued show cause notices dated 12.2.2002 and 8.3.2002 proposing to levy tax and penalty, to which the petitioner ﬁled detailed reply on 22.2.2002. Subsequently, rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner, the ﬁrst respondent levied disputed tax and penalty at Rs.1,63,366/- and Rs.4,93,095/- respectively by orders dated 8.3.2002 and 4.4.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which were dismissed by order dated 17.5.2002 and 1.8.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeals in TA Nos. 446 and 453 of 2003 before the second respondent – Tribunal and application for stay was ﬁled before the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad, who granted conditional stay on payment of 1/3rd of the disputed tax and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred WP No. 6888 of 2003 which was disposed of by order dated 21.4.2003 directing the petitioner to pay disputed tax of Rs.1,63,366/-, which was complied with by the petitioner. While so, after constitution of separate Bench of Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam, the appeals ﬁled by the petitioner stood transferred before the Visakhapatnam Bench. It is case of the petitioner that since the Tribunal was concentrating on old appeals, its counsel was under the impression that the appeals ﬁled by it may not be taken up for hearing. In the meanwhile the petitioner received garnishee notice dated 19.3.2008 in respect of the levy and on enquiry, about the appeals ﬁled by it, the petitioner came to know that they dismissed for default on 20.7.2007. It is further case of the petitioner that since an application for restoration of appeal, dismissed for default, has to be made within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order from the Appellate Tribunal and since its counsel did not inform the fact of receiving the order from the Tribunal and since there is no speciﬁc power to condone the delay in ﬁling such an application, the petitioner is advised that the application ﬁled it on 26.3.2008 seeking to set aside the dismissal for default order, is not maintainable and, therefore, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking the above payer. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. There is no dispute that Regulation 9 of the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2005 provides that an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default can only be ﬁled within thirty day days from the date of receipt of the order from the Appellate Tribunal. There is also no dispute that there is no speciﬁc power to condone the delay in ﬁling such an application. As such the petition said to have been ﬁled by the petitioner on 26.3.2008 seeking to set aside the orders of dismissal for default, is not maintainable. The averments made in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the above petition go to show that the authorized representative of the petitioner attended the Tribunal late by ﬁfteen minutes and in the meanwhile the Tribunal had passed dismissal for default order on 20.7.2007. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to its original ﬁle by setting aside the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal for default. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar August 28, 2008 Furnish copy in a week //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}