IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12592 of 2008 Between: M/s SREE TIRUMALA ENTERPRISES, Rep by its Proprietor, J.Krishna, S/o. Pandarinath, R/o. Osmanshahi, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Opp Gandhi Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of C.T. Abids Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax officer, Gowliguda Circle, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commerical Tax Officer, Gowliguda Circle, Abids Division, 2nd Floor, Kakatiya Hote Buildings (old), Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue Writ, Order or Direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned assessment order dt. 31.03.2003 for the Assessment year 1999-2000 (APGST) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of APGST Act, 1957 and consequently set aside the assessment said to have been made on 31.03.2003 and further direct the respondents to give effect to the G.O.Ms.No.354, dt. 29.05.2001 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GANESH BHUJANGA RAO VADDURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner, who was dealing in Sanitary Goods at the relevant time, has been aggrieved by an assessment order passed under the provisions of Section 14 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 31-3-2003. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the assessment order was in respect of the assessment year 1999- 2000 and according to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Act, the assessment ought to have been made within two years of the expiry of the assessment year and, therefore, the order of assessment is bad in law. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner had not challenged the assessment order but had challenged the consequential order in the civil Court. The civil Court had passed an interim order, which was subsequently vacated. Having failed in the civil Court, the petitioner has approached this Court, at the time when the amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner-assessee under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-authorities has submitted that the petitioner had filed the returns at a belated stage and, therefore, the period for completing the assessment was six years from the last day of the year to which the assessment pertained to. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court after a long delay and the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy at the relevant time. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of not availing alternative remedy provided under the Act. We have considered the relevant submissions made by the learned Advocates and have also gone through the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. It is not in dispute that the assessment order was passed on 31-3- 2003. Though equally efficacious and alternative remedy was available under the Act, the petitioner, instead of challenging the assessment order, had filed a civil suit for challenging the consequential order. Having failed there, the petitioner had approached this Court in 2008 when recovery was sought to be made under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. In our opinion, this petition cannot be entertained by this Court especially for the reason that when equally, efficacious and alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, the petitioner did not challenge the order before the appellate authority and challenged the consequential order. Looking to the above fact and in view of the fact that substantial delay has been caused in approaching this Court, we do not see any reason to entertain the petition. The petition stands rejected with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 19th January, 2009. GRR