IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, , THE TWENTYIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8 8 4 8 of 2010 Between: M/s. Om Sri Sadguru Marketing, Motinagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER Represented by its Proprietor, Sri C.Upender. V/s. The Commercial Tax Officer, Vengal rao Nagar Circle, Hyderabad & Anr. .....RESPONDENTS The Division Bench made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8 8 4 8 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari} The writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to set aside the appeal rejection order dated 28-01-2010 passed by the second respondent in AR.Sl.No.P/263 and 264/2009 for the assessment period 2008-09 (AP.VAT) pursuant to the assessment and penalty orders passed by the first respondent in Form VAT-305 dated 13-09-2009 and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a dealer in Haldiram Products like Moon Dal, Halke Pulke, Potato chips etc., and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. It is stated that for the assessment period 2008-09 the petitioner’s assessment has been completed by the first respondent through proceedings dated 15-9- 2009 under Form VAT-305 and through the same proceedings the first respondent also levied penalty amounting to Rs.68,093-00. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent on 29-12-2009 with a delay of 26 days. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appeal was filed with a delay of 26 days but the appeal papers were signed by the petitioner within thirty days period, the appeal papers were mixed up with the bundle of a different firm and the same were noticed at a later date. Thus, there is a delay of 26 days caused in filing the appeals. 4. It is stated that since the limitation period was expiring, the petitioner immediately filed the appeals before the second respondent under the impression that the petition for condonation of delay could be filed at a later date but the petitioner filed the appeals within the extended period of limitation of 30 days. But the second respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner requiring for filing of delay condonation petition and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the reason for the delay had rejected the appeals through the impugned proceedings dated 28-1- 2010. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, i.e., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) explaining the above facts and circumstances but the second respondent without affording any opportunity rejected the appeals by the impugned proceedings dated 28-10-2010. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the second respondent, the first is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the appeal rejection order dated 28-01- 2010 passed by the second respondent in AR.Sl.No.P/263 and 264/2009 for the assessment period 2008-09 (AP.VAT) pursuant to the assessment and penalty orders passed by the first respondent in Form VAT-305 dated 13-09-2009 and the same shall be restored. The second respondent, Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, is directed to consider and dispose of the said petition afresh, as expeditiously as possible, on merits and in accordance with law. But however, the first respondent is directed not to take coercive step, pending finalisation of the appeal by the second respondent, Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 8. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 20-04-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8 8 4 8 OF 2010 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 9 1 Date: 20-04-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L