THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 31058 OF 2011 DATED:07-12-2011 Between: M/s. Ultra Tech. Cements Ltd., rep., by Mr. P.K. Jain, Vice President (F&C), Bhogasamudram Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapur District … Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Ananthapur Division, Ananthapur and two others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 31058 OF 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 29-10-2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), (FAC), Ananthapur under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005. 2. On going through the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, we ﬁnd that it is an appealable order. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition challenging the order and leave it open to the petitioner to challenge the order by way of an appeal. 3. We may note that in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.,[1], the Supreme Court held as follows: “There are two well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition.” 4. None of these conditions are met in the present case. Under the circumstances, following the decision of the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy available under the statute. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time to file an appeal. 7. We grant two weeks time to the petitioner to ﬁle an appeal before the departmental authorities. We make it clear that in case the appeal is ﬁled within two weeks, the appellate authority will consider the appeal on its own merits without going into the question of limitation. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 07-12-2011 ks Note: LR copy to be marked. [1] (2005) 142 ST C 1