THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.14755, 14846 AND 14883 OF 2011 .06.2011 Between: M/s.Health Food Enterprises …. Petitioner AND Commercial Tax Officer, Agapura Circle, Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.14755, 14846 AND 14883 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These three writ petitions are filed by M/s.Health Food Enterprises, Hyderabad, challenging the assessment of value added tax for the years 2007-2008, 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 respectively. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act, for brevity) on the rolls of the respondent. The dealer is engaged in the business of Vanaspati, Cheese, Butter and Margarine. The respondent issued show cause notice dated 31.05.2010 in Form VAT 305A. In the said show cause notice, the respondent alleged that VAT has not been declared in the returns correctly and proposed to assess them for the tax periods mentioned therein. The respondent stated that the petitioner is a first dealer in Vanaspati, Cheese, Butter and Margarine; the dealer is a consignee agent of M/s.Carnation Nutraanalogue Foods Limited dealing in ‘Paneer’; the VAT records revealed that the goods were received on consignment from outside the State; that tax at 4% was declared on the sales within the State; the ‘Paneer’ does not fall in any of the Schedules I to IV of the VAT Act and is, thus, exigible to tax at 12.5% under Schedule V as per the Advance Ruling in AR No.198 of 2005, dated 15.07.2005. The petitioner was asked to submit their written objections. The petitioner alleges that they submitted objections dated 16.07.2010 on 21.07.2010. The respondent, however, passed impugned assessment orders on 03.09.2010 without considering the objections. Hence, these writ petitions. Heard the counsel for petitioner, who reiterated the only submission that the impugned assessment order is in violation of principles of natural justice, in that the written objections submitted by the petitioner on 16.07.2010, were not considered. The Special Counsel for CT, per contra, points out that the writ petitions are filed with a delay of about seven months, that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner, and again a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), and that, as per the impugned order, the petitioner did not submit the written objections after receiving the show cause notice. The respondent proceeded based on the material observing that in spite of the receipt of notice in VAT 305A on 05.06.2010 inviting objections, the petitioner did not file any reply. Before this Court, the petitioner has produced a xerox copy of the objections dated 16.07.2010 allegedly submitted to the respondent. The same contains the stamp of the Office of the respondent in proof of acknowledgement. Even then we are afraid we cannot entertain the writ petitions, for three reasons. Firstly, the affidavit accompanying the writ petition is silent as to when the petitioner received the impugned assessment order, dated 03.09.2010. Assuming that it was received within a short time thereafter, and the petitioner had any grievance that written objections have not been considered, nothing prevented the petitioner to immediately approach the respondent raising such a plea. They did not do so. Secondly, under Section 31(1) of the VAT Act, an effective remedy is provided to agitate the matter before the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner raising such pleas. It was also not done. Lastly, when the impugned order was passed on 03.09.2010, the writ petitions were filed on 29.04.2011 beyond the period prescribed by the Statute for filing appeals under Section 31 of the VAT Act. This would lead to an inference that the petitioner has not been diligent enough in seeking redressal before the appropriate departmental authority or before this Court, and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the belated writ petitions. These writ petitions are therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) .06.2011 Pln