IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14483 of 2009 Between: Ramanlal Industries Limited, Represented by its Manager, K. Aruna Sekhar, Kakinada, East Godavary District. ...Petitioner And 1. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appellate Authority), Visakhapatnam Town and District. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada, East Godavary 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in returning the petitioner's appeal filed against the assessment order for the year 1999-2000 No.3058/1999- 2000(CST), dated 20-02-2003 in his Proceedings No.SPL/E/4/2009- 2010, dated 29-4-2009 though reasonable cause is shown by the petitioner for the delay as illegal, arbitrary and high handed and consequently set aside the order in his Proceedings No. SPL/E/4/2009-2010, dated 29-4-2009 by directing the 1st respondent to receive the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) Being aggrieved by an order dated 29th April, 2009 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam, respondent No.1 herein, this petition has been filed. 2) By virtue of the impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been returned back to the petitioner on the ground that the appeal had been filed after more than six years of the assessment order, whereas the limitation prescribed under the Act for filing an appeal is 30 days. 3) We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It has been submitted by him that looking to the facts of the case, the appeal ought to have been entertained by the first respondent by condoning the delay. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate that the whole-time Director of the petitioner company was mentally disturbed and possibly for that reason the company could not challenge the validity of the assessment order within the period of limitation. According to him, possibly, the order of assessment was also not served upon the petitioner company properly. 4) Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, no case has been made out by the petitioner as the delay is exorbitant. We do not find any illegality committed by the first respondent and, therefore, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 27th July, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. ………..……REGISTRAR To 1. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appellate Authority), Visakhapatnam Town and District. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada, East Godavary District. 3. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4. Two C.D. copies. ARS