THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28587 of 2009 March 09, 2011 Between: M/s.Hari Sai Communication Net-work, Godavarikhani, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.B.Swami Goud … Petitioner And The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28587 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of the first respondent dated 16.11.2009, rejecting the petitioner’s application to condone the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing entertainment through cable operators. It is a Master Cable Operator as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 (the Act). It is a partnership firm and commenced business operations in January 2005. The petitioner claims to have obtained a license, under Section 15-B of the Act, on 03.7.2009 with effect from 01.4.2009, and to be filing its returns before the second respondent from April, 2008. The second respondent, by order dated 19.5.2009, levied entertainment tax for the period from 01.1.2003, i.e., for the period from 01.1.2003 to 31.3.2008, in a sum of ` 61,14,400/-. The petitioner claims to have pursued the matter with the second respondent to cancel the demand as the assessment was made on the premise that there were 25,000 connections provided by the petitioner covering the period only from January, 2003 to March, 2008 whereas the petitioner claims to have 5,000 connections that too from January, 2005, when it commenced its business. A reference is also made to the Public Interest Litigation filed before this Court in W.P.No.21171 of 2009. The petitioner would state that it is only when he approached Counsel with regards the said writ petition that he was advised, on 19.5.2009, to prefer an appeal against the order of the second respondent which had resulted in a delay of 137 days in preferring the appeal. Under Section 9B of the Act read with Rule 38(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939, the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay for sufficient cause. In the order under challenge in this writ petition the appellate authority records that the appellant had chosen to pursue the matter with the Commercial Tax Officer, which showed that they had no intention of filing an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner until they were advised to do so. We are satisfied that the delay, in this case, is not one which ought not to be condoned even on terms. Ends of justice would be met if the delay of 137 days in preferring the appeal is condoned subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of ` 10,000/- with the second respondent within a period of two weeks from today. Subject to payment of costs aforementioned, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. On the petitioner producing proof of payment of costs to the second respondent, the first respondent shall entertain the appeal and pass orders thereupon on merits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) March 09, 2011 YS