THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8026 OF 2009 Dated:27.06.2011 Between: Sri Venkata Satya Sai Agencies, Jagtial, represented by its Proprietor R.Anuradha, W/o.Ashok, aged 42 years, R/o.Jagtial, Karimnagar District .. Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax), Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8026 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietrix Smt.R.Anuradha, wife of Ashok. She is a registered dealer engaged in the business of sale of washing powder. For the assessment year 1998-1999, the assessment was finalized determining the net taxable turnover at Rs.16,77,658/-. The first respondent revised the order on 19.08.2004. After obtaining the certified copy on 18.06.2008, the petitioner submitted an appeal under Section 21(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, with an application, being T.M.P.No.28 of 2009, for condonation of delay. She alleged that the copy of the first respondent is not at all served on her and that, after obtaining the certified copy, she filed the appeal. This was opposed by the State contending that a copy of the order was served on the Proprietrix on 23.11.2004. This was demurred by the petitioner. Her contention was that Smt.R.Anuradha, whose signature was obtained on the office copy of the order of the first respondent, is the servant-maid, and therefore there is no proper service. The same was not accepted and the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dismissed the application of condoning the delay. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional order of the first respondent was never served on the petitioner, and it was served on the servant-maid which is not a valid service. Learned Tribunal dealing with this aspect, observed as under. Revision order is dated 19.08.2004 (as disclosed by the revision order itself). It was served on Smt.R.Anuradha, Proprietress on 23.11.2004 (as disclosed from the revision orders), the impugned order was served on no other person than the proprietress of the petitioner firm. There is no evidence on record to show that the impugned order was served on the servant maid. The signature of the recipient tallies with signatures found on assessment record such as letters addressed to Commercial Tax Officer, Jagtial. No reason is shown to us that Smt.R.Anuradha who received the impugned order is the servant of Smt.R.Anuradha, proprietress of the petitioner firm. We therefore have least hesitation to hold that the impugned order was served on the proprietress of Smt.R.Anuradha on 23.11.2004. Therefore, filing of appeal after a time span of four years for the purported reason that the impugned order was served on the servant maid of the petitioner firm is legally impermissible. And supplying of a copy of the impugned order by the revisional authority does not confer any legally sustainable right of appeal on the petitioner whom the petitioner firm authorized to receive the orders is not forthcoming. The Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes has placed before this Court a Xerox copy of the order dated 19.08.2004 passed by the first respondent with acknowledgement of receipt of the same by Smt.R.Anuradha, dated 23.11.2004. Therefore, we see no reason to disagree with the observations as made above by the STAT, while dismissing the application for condoning the delay nor we are inclined to interfere with such a matter. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 27.06.2011 KH