IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 12586 of 2008 Between: M/s. Krishna Traders, 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. .....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 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 such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GANESH BHUJANGA RAO VADDURI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 12586 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The writ petition is filed for a declaration that the impugned assessment order dated 31.3.2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) is illegal, contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act and for the consequent relief of invalidation of the assessment said to have been made on 31.3.2003 and for a further direction to the respondents to give effect to the orders of the State Government in G.O. Ms. No.354, dated 29.5.2001. The petitioner is a registered dealer pursuing business in sanitary goods with the A.P. State Housing Corporation, being a principal customer. The petitioner did not file returns for the assessment year 1999-2000 and when the Commercial Tax Department officials visited and inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 29.3.2000,they discovered the factum of the petitioner not filing the returns. The officials, thereupon made enquiries with the A.P. Housing Corporation and on the basis of the information so gathered, issued the pre-provisional assessment Show-Cause notice on 4.4.2000. As the petitioner declined to receive the notice, it was served by affixture on 27.04.2000. Eventually, the petitioner by a letter dated 3.5.2000, responded to the pre-provisional assessment show cause notice seeking time. Even after the period of extension of time for response, solicited by the petitioner expired, he failed to produce any books of accounts nor lodged objections to the show cause notice. In the circumstances, another show cause notice dated 10.3.2003 was issued to the petitioner proposing to finalise the assessment for the year 1999-2000. This notice was also served by affixture as the petitioner was not available. There being no response to this notice either, the respondent passed an assessment order dated 31.3.2003, which was also served by affixture. The order of assessment was also made available to the petitioner on 13.1.2004, at its request. The petitioner did not take recourse to the appellate remedy, available under Section 19 of the Act and the assessment order has thus become final. As the petitioner despite repeated demands to pay the tax determined failed to clear the dues, the 3rd respondent invoked the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act and issued a Distraint Order on 26.5.2004. Eventually a notice in Form No. 6 constituting the demand prior to attachment of land was served on the petitioner on 26.6.2004. Curiously, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by way of O.S. No. 3857 of 2004 challenging the notice of attachment in Form No. 6. Initially, the Court of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-12th Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad granted ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 5051 of 2006 which order was subsequently, after hearing the Revenue, vacated on 1.12.2006. The suit is however stated to be pending. As the deck was now cleared for the Revenue to proceed against the petitioner, the respondents issued Form 6 Notice for assumption of the enumerated properties. This was published on 27.3.2008 in the Gazette. Now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of assessment and, in substance, seeking interdiction of the proceedings under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act. Section 19 of the Act enables an appellate remedy to a dealer against any order passed or proceedings recorded by any authority under the provisions of the Act (including an order of assessment), within a period of thirty days from the date on which such order or proceedings are served on the dealer. This writ petition has been filed on 17.6.2008, way beyond the period of 30 days period stipulated under Section 19 of the Act. It is an established principle that even the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be pursued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the governing statute for pursuit of alternative statutory remedies, including by way of a suit. In the legal context operational on the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act, the petitioner had available an appellate remedy, which he could pursue within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of assessment. The petitioner failed to pursue the said remedy, but, has instead approached this Court, way beyond the time available for preferring an appeal. The petitioner also does not plead any facts as to why it did not pursue the appellate remedy and why the extraordinary relief of Mandamus is sought. The writ petition is therefore, bereft of merits including on the ground of delay and laches. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 19.6.2008 stands dissolved. There shall however, be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 3rd December, 2008 ________________​______ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR,J Pnb