# ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU KAKINADA & ORS v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED

- **Citation:** [2020] 4 S.C.R. 602
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-05-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/assistant-commissioner-ct-ltu-kakinada-ors-v-m-s-glaxo-smith-kline-consumer-34439
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Constitution of India:
Art. 226 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Assessment under
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Appeal against
assessment order filed beyond limitation period with application
for condonation of delay - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation
- Writ Petition u/Art. 226 seeking to quash the assessment order -
High Court quashed the assessment order relegating the assessee
to Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the matter afresh -
Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: Where a right or liability is created
by a statute, giving a special remedy for enforcing it, remedy
provided by the statute only must be availed of - The wide jurisdiction
of High Court provided u/Art. 226, does not mean that it can pass
order in disregard of the substantive provisions of a statute - The
statutory appeal was filed beyond the total 60 days' period specified
in s.31 of 2005 Act - The appellate authority is not empowered to
condone delay of the aggregate period of 60 days - Since the
statutory period specified for filing the appeal had expired and
appeal was filed without substantiating the ground for delay in filing
the appeal, no indulgence could be shown to the assessee - the writ
petition deserved to be rejected at the threshold.
Doctrine:
Doctrine of merger - Rejection of condonation of delay
application by appellate forum does not entail in merger of the
assessment order with that order.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is evident from s. 31 of Andhra Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2005 that the statutory appeal is required to be
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 602
602
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
filed within 30 days from the date on which the order or proceeding
was served on the assessee. If the appeal is filed after expiry of
prescribed period, the appellate authority is empowered to
condone the delay in filing the appeal, only if it is filed within a
further period of not exceeding 30 days and sufficient cause for
not preferring the appeal within prescribed time is made out.
The appellate authority is not empowered to condone delay beyond
the aggregate period of 60 days from the date of order or service
of proceeding on the assessee, as the case may be. In the present
case, admittedly, the appeal was filed way beyond the total 60
days' period specified in terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act.
[Para 8][614-D-F]
2. The appellate authority vide order dated 25.10.2018,
considered the reasons offered by the respondent for the delay
in filing of the appeal and concluded that the same were not
substantiated with sufficient cause, and that the delay beyond the
period of 60 days from the date of service of the assessment
order on the respondent-assessee cannot be condoned.
[Para 8][617-B]
3. The High Court finally allowed the writ petition on the
ground that the statutory remedy had become ineffective for the
respondent (writ petitioner) due to expiry of 60 days from the
date of service of the assessment order. Inasmuch as, the
appellate authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay after
expiry of 60 days, despite the reason mentioned by the
respondent of an extraordinary situation due to the act of
commission and omission of its employee who was in charge of
the tax matters, forcing the management to suspend him and
initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Soon after becoming
aware about the assessment order, the respondent had filed the
appeal, but that was after expiry of 60 days' period. The High
Court was also impressed by the contention pressed into service
by the respondent that it ought to be given one opportunity to
explain to the authority (Assistant Commissioner) about the
discrepancies between the value reported in the CST returns
and the amount indicated in Form "F" relating to the turnover.
The additional reason as can be discerned from the impugned
order is that the respondent had already deposited an additional
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

## Text

_Characters 0–39,931 of 81,208. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39931 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU KAKINADA & ORS.
v.
M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER
HEALTH CARE LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020)
MAY 06, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art. 226 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Assessment under
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Appeal against
assessment order filed beyond limitation period with application
for condonation of delay - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation
- Writ Petition u/Art. 226 seeking to quash the assessment order -
High Court quashed the assessment order relegating the assessee
to Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the matter afresh -
Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: Where a right or liability is created
by a statute, giving a special remedy for enforcing it, remedy
provided by the statute only must be availed of - The wide jurisdiction
of High Court provided u/Art. 226, does not mean that it can pass
order in disregard of the substantive provisions of a statute - The
statutory appeal was filed beyond the total 60 days' period specified
in s.31 of 2005 Act - The appellate authority is not empowered to
condone delay of the aggregate period of 60 days - Since the
statutory period specified for filing the appeal had expired and
appeal was filed without substantiating the ground for delay in filing
the appeal, no indulgence could be shown to the assessee - the writ
petition deserved to be rejected at the threshold.
Doctrine:
Doctrine of merger - Rejection of condonation of delay
application by appellate forum does not entail in merger of the
assessment order with that order.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is evident from s. 31 of Andhra Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2005 that the statutory appeal is required to be
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 602
602
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
filed within 30 days from the date on which the order or proceeding
was served on the assessee. If the appeal is filed after expiry of
prescribed period, the appellate authority is empowered to
condone the delay in filing the appeal, only if it is filed within a
further period of not exceeding 30 days and sufficient cause for
not preferring the appeal within prescribed time is made out.
The appellate authority is not empowered to condone delay beyond
the aggregate period of 60 days from the date of order or service
of proceeding on the assessee, as the case may be. In the present
case, admittedly, the appeal was filed way beyond the total 60
days' period specified in terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act.
[Para 8][614-D-F]
2. The appellate authority vide order dated 25.10.2018,
considered the reasons offered by the respondent for the delay
in filing of the appeal and concluded that the same were not
substantiated with sufficient cause, and that the delay beyond the
period of 60 days from the date of service of the assessment
order on the respondent-assessee cannot be condoned.
[Para 8][617-B]
3. The High Court finally allowed the writ petition on the
ground that the statutory remedy had become ineffective for the
respondent (writ petitioner) due to expiry of 60 days from the
date of service of the assessment order. Inasmuch as, the
appellate authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay after
expiry of 60 days, despite the reason mentioned by the
respondent of an extraordinary situation due to the act of
commission and omission of its employee who was in charge of
the tax matters, forcing the management to suspend him and
initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Soon after becoming
aware about the assessment order, the respondent had filed the
appeal, but that was after expiry of 60 days' period. The High
Court was also impressed by the contention pressed into service
by the respondent that it ought to be given one opportunity to
explain to the authority (Assistant Commissioner) about the
discrepancies between the value reported in the CST returns
and the amount indicated in Form "F" relating to the turnover.
The additional reason as can be discerned from the impugned
order is that the respondent had already deposited an additional
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
amount equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax amount in terms
of the earlier order. [Para 10][622-A-E]
4. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition
against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State
under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a
matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed
of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by
law. Although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise selfimposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition, if an
alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
[Para 11][623-H; 624-A-C]
Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of
India & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 337 ; Thansingh Nathmal
& Ors. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors. AIR
1964 SC 1419 : [1964] 6 SCR 654 - followed.
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila
Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar AIR 1969
SC 556 : [1969] SCR 518 - relied on.
5. Where a right or liability is created by a statute, which
gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by
that statute must only be availed of. [Para 11][625-E]
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Orissa
& Ors. (1983) 2 SCC 433 : [1983] 2 SCR 743 - relied
on.
6. The fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard
the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can
be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute.
[Para 11][626-G]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 536 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585 -
relied on.
7. Indubitably, the powers of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution are wide, but certainly not wider than the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
605
plenary powers bestowed on this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution. Article 142 is a conglomeration and repository of
the entire judicial powers under the Constitution, to do complete
justice to the parties. Even while exercising that power, this Court
is required to bear in mind the legislative intent and not to render
the statutory provision otiose. What this Court cannot do in
exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can
take a different approach in the matter in reference to Article
226 of the Constitution. [Paras 12 and 14][627-A-B; 632-E-F]
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat
Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors. (2017)
5 SCC 42 : [2017] 2 SCR 922; Singh Enterprises v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors.
(2008) 3 SCC 70 : [2007] 13 SCR 952 ; Commissioner
of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private
Limited & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 791 ; Chhattisgarh State
Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 23 : [2010] 4 SCR
680 ; Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v.
Electricity
Department
represented
by
its
Superintending Engineer, Port Blair & Ors. (2016) 16
SCC 152 : [2016] 8 SCR 108 ; State v. Mushtaq Ahmad
& Ors. (2016) 1 SCC 315 : [2015] 15 SCR 452
- relied on.
8. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High
Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge
the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that
the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction
- by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including
in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation
of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified.
The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also
non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious
remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner.
However, if the writ petitioner choses to approach the High Court
after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court
cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the
grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter
of course. The fact that the High Court has wide powers, does
not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent
with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly
prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render
the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision
otiose. [Para 15][633-B-E]
K.S. Rashid & Son v. the Income Tax Investigation
Commission AIR 1954 SC 207 : [1954] SCR 738; ITC
Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 610 -
distinguished.
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India
& Ors. 2018 (361) ELT 22 (A.P.) ; Panoli Intermediate
(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2015
Guj 97 ; Phoenix Plasts Company v. Commissioner of
Central Excise (Appeal-I), Bangalore 2013 (298) ELT
481 (Kar.) - not approved.
9. The remedy of appeal is creature of statute. If the appeal
is presented by the assessee beyond the extended statutory
limitation period of 60 days in terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act
and is, therefore, not entertained, it is incomprehensible as to
how it would become a case of violation of fundamental right,
much less statutory or legal right as such. [Para 18][635-C-D]
10.1 In the present case, the respondent had asserted that
it was not aware about the passing of assessment order dated
21.6.2017 although it is admitted that the same was served on
the authorised representative of the respondent on 22.6.2017.
The date on which the respondent became aware about the order
is not expressly stated either in the application for condonation
of delay filed before the appellate authority, the affidavit filed in
support of the said application or for that matter, in the memo of
writ petition. On the other hand, it is seen that the amount
equivalent to 12.5% of the tax amount came to be deposited on
12.9.2017 for and on behalf of respondent, without filing an appeal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
and without any demur - after the expiry of statutory period of
maximum 60 days, prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act.
Not only that, the respondent filed a formal application under
Rule 60 of the 2005 Rules on 8.5.2018 and pursued the same in
appeal, which was rejected on 17.8.2018. [Para 19][635-D-G]
10.2 Furthermore, the appeal in question against the
assessment order came to be filed only on 24.9.2018 without
disclosing the date on which the respondent in fact became aware
about the existence of the assessment order dated 21.6.2017.
On the other hand, in the affidavit of the Site Director of the
respondent company (filed in support of the application for
condonation of delay before the appellate authority), it is stated
that the company became aware about the irregularities committed
by its erring official in the month of July, 2018, which pre-supposes
that the respondent must have become aware about the
assessment order, at least in July, 2018. In the same affidavit, it
is asserted that the respondent company was not aware about
the assessment order, as it was not brought to its notice by the
employee concerned due to his negligence. The respondent in
the writ petition has averred that the appeal was rejected by the
appellate authority on the ground that it had no power to condone
the delay beyond 30 days, when in fact, the order examines the
cause set out by the respondent and concludes that the same
was unsubstantiated by the respondent. That finding has not been
examined by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order
at all, but the High Court was more impressed by the fact that
the respondent was in a position to offer some explanation about
the discrepancies in respect of the volume of turnover and that
the respondent had already deposited 12.5% of the additional
amount in terms of the previous order passed by it. That reason
can have no bearing on the justification for non-filing of the appeal
within the statutory period. No affidavit of the erring employee
or at least the other employee who was associated with the erring
employee during the relevant period, has been filed in support of
the stand taken in the application for condonation of delay.
Pertinently, no finding has been recorded by the High Court that
it was a case of violation of principles of natural justice or noncompliance of statutory requirements in any manner. [Para
19][635-G-H; 636-A-E]
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
11. Since the statutory period specified for filing of appeal
had expired long back in August, 2017 itself and the appeal came
to be filed by the respondent only on 24.9.2018, without
substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the
prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent
at all. [Para 19][636-E-F]
12. It is not correct to say that the respondent having failed
to assail the order passed by the appellate authority, dated
25.10.2018 rejecting the application for condonation of delay, the
assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, dated
21.6.2017 stood merged. Rejection of delay application by the
appellate forum does not entail in merger of the assessment order
with that order. [Para 20][636-G-H; 637-A]
13. The High Court ought not to have entertained the
subject writ petition filed by the respondent herein. The same
deserved to be rejected at the threshold. [Para 21][637-A-B]
Raja Mechanical Company Private Limited v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I (2012) 12 SCC
613 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1969] SCR 518
relied on
Para 11
(2011) 14 SCC 337
followed
Para 11
[1964] 6 SCR 654
followed
Para 11
[1983] 2 SCR 743
relied on
Para 11
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585
relied on
Para 11
[2017] 2 SCR 922
relied on
Para 12
[2007] 13 SCR 952
relied on
Para 12
(2009) 5 SCC 791
relied on
Para 12
[2010] 4 SCR 680
relied on
Para 12
[2016] 8 SCR 108
relied on
Para 12
[2015] 15 SCR 452
relied on
Para 14
2018 (361) ELT 22(A.P.)
not approved
Para 15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
AIR 2015 Guj 97
not approved
Para 15
2013 (298) ELT 481 (Kar.)
not approved
Para 15
[1954] SCR 738
distinguished
Para 16
(1998) 8 SCC 610
distinguished
Para 17
(2012) 12 SCC 613
relied on
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2413
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh in W.P. No. 39418 of 2018.
G. N. Reddy, Hemal Kirit Kumar Sheth, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,
V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Aaditya
Bhattacharya, Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Ms. Mounica Kasturi, and Ms. Ishita
Mathur, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the judgment
and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 39418/2018 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise
of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought
to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that
the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by
the law of limitation?
3. The respondent is a registered dealer on the rolls of Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Large Tax Payer Unit at Kakinada
Division2 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act,
20053 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 19564 and is engaged in the business
of manufacturing and sale of Horlicks, Boost, Biscuits, Ghee, Ayurvedic
1 For short, "the High Court"
2 For short, "the Assistant Commissioner"
3 For short, "the 2005 Act"
4 For short, "the 1956 Act"
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
Medicines etc. The Assistant Commissioner had called upon the
respondent to produce books of accounts for the assessment year
2013-14 for finalisation of assessment under the 1956 Act. The authorised
representative of the respondent produced declaration in Form "F" in
support of its claim that certain transactions are inter-State transfers.
The information and declaration furnished by the respondent was duly
verified and after giving personal hearing to the respondent, final
assessment order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner on
21.6.2017, raising demand of Rs.76,73,197/- (Rupees seventy six lakhs
seventy three thousand one hundred ninety seven only) against turnover
of Rs.3,44,15,240/- (Rupees three crores forty four lakhs fifteen thousand
two hundred forty only) on the finding that the respondent had failed to
submit Form "F" to the tune of the turnover reported in the Central
Sales Tax (CST) return. This assessment order was duly served on the
respondent on 22.6.2017. The respondent did not file appeal against this
assessment order within the statutory period. Instead, amount equivalent
to 12.5% of the demand was deposited on 12.9.2017. The respondent
then filed an application under Rule 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Value
Added Tax Rules, 20055, highlighting the error made in raising the demand
based on incorrect turnover reported by the respondent. This application
was filed only on 8.5.2018, which came to be rejected by the Assistant
Commissioner vide order dated 11.5.2018. Aggrieved by the decision
dated 11.5.2018, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vijayawada6 on 28.5.2018,
which came to be rejected on 17.8.2018. It is only thereafter, the
respondent-assessee was advised to file appeal before the Appellate
Deputy Commissioner on 24.9.2018 against the assessment order dated
21.6.2017. In the meantime, another assessment order came to be passed
on 31.3.2018 in relation to the Audit taken up for the tax period from
1.4.2013 to 31.3.2017. We are not concerned with the said order in the
present appeal.
4. Reverting to the appeal filed by the respondent against the
assessment order dated 21.6.2017, the same was dismissed on 25.10.2018
being barred by limitation and also because no sufficient cause was
made out. The respondent was then advised to file writ petition before
the High Court being Writ Petition No. 39418/2018, solely for quashing
5 For short, "the 2005 Rules"
6 For short, "the Appellate Deputy Commissioner" or "the appellate authority", as the
case may be"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
611
and setting aside of assessment order dated 21.6.2017 for tax period -
April, 2013 to March, 2014 (CST) being contrary to law, without
jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice to the extent of
levy on the Branch Transfer turnovers and to direct the Assistant
Commissioner (CT) to re-do the assessment and reckon the correct
Branch Transfer turnover and grant exemption on the basis of Form
"F". The respondent did not challenge the order passed by the Appellate
Deputy Commissioner, rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the
respondent against the assessment order dated 21.6.2017, for reasons
best known to the respondent. The Division Bench of the High Court, on
8.11.2018, noted that the respondent had already paid 12.5% of the
disputed tax, for the purpose of filing an appeal. It also noted the stand
taken by the respondent that the employee who was in charge of the tax
matters of the respondent, had defaulted and was subsequently suspended
in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, as a result of which statutory
appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The Division Bench
of the High Court directed the respondent to pay an additional amount
equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax within one week and posted the
matter for 19.11.2018. This was an ex-parte order. The respondent, in
terms of the stated order, deposited an additional amount equivalent to
12.5% of the disputed tax amount. The writ petition was then taken up
for hearing on 19.11.2018, when after hearing the counsel for the parties,
the writ petition came to be allowed and the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, dated 21.6.2017 has been quashed and set aside and the
respondent relegated before the Assistant Commissioner for
reconsideration of the matter afresh after giving personal hearing to the
respondent to explain the discrepancies. This order has also noted that
the respondent had paid Rs.9,59,190/- (Rupees nine lakhs fifty-nine
thousand one hundred ninety only) equivalent to the 12.5% of the taxes
in the year 2013-14 (CST) on 13.11.2018.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
It is urged that the respondent having failed to avail of statutory remedy
of appeal within the prescribed time and also because the delay in filing
appeal had not been satisfactorily explained, the High Court ought not to
have entertained the writ petition at the instance of such person and
moreso, because the respondent had allowed the order passed by the
appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay to become
final. In substance, the argument is that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction and committed manifest error in setting aside the assessment
order dated 21.6.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
6. The respondent, on the other hand, would urge that the High
Court has had ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to grant relief to the respondent considering the peculiar facts of
the present case being an exceptional situation which if not remedied,
would result in failure of justice.
7. We have heard Mr. G.N. Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the
respondent.
8. From the indisputable facts, it is evident that the assessment
order dated 21.6.2017 was challenged by the respondent by way of
statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner only on
24.9.2018. Section 31 of the 2005 Act provides for the statutory remedy
against an assessment order. The same, as applicable at the relevant
time, reads thus: -
"31. (1) Any VAT dealer or TOT dealer or any other dealer
objecting to any order passed or proceeding recorded by any
authority under the provisions of the Act other than an order passed
or proceeding recorded by an Additional Commissioner or Joint
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, may within thirty days
from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on
him, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed:
Provided that the appellate authority may within a further
period of thirty days admit the appeal preferred after a period of
thirty days if he is satisfied that the VAT dealer or TOT dealer or
any other dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal
within that period:
Provided further that an appeal so preferred shall not be
admitted by the appellate authority concerned unless the dealer
produces the proof of payment of tax, penalty, interest or any
other amount admitted to be due, or of such instalments as have
been granted, and the proof of payment of twelve and half percent
of the difference of the tax, penalty, interest or any other amount,
assessed by the authority prescribed and the tax, penalty, interest
or any other amount admitted by the appellant, for the relevant
tax period, in respect of which the appeal is preferred.
(2) The appeal shall be in such form, and verified in such manner,
as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a fee which
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
shall not be less than Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only) but shall not
exceed Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as may be
prescribed.
(3) (a) Where an appeal is admitted under sub-section (1), the
appellate authority may, on an application filed by the appellant
and subject to furnishing of such security or on payment of such
part of the disputed tax within such time as may be specified,
order stay of collection of balance of the tax under dispute pending
disposal of the appeal;
(b) Against an order passed by the appellate authority refusing
to order stay under clause (a), the appellant may prefer a
revision petition within thirty days from the date of the order of
such refusal to the Additional Commissioner or the Joint
Commissioner who may subject to such terms and conditions
as he may think fit, order stay of collection of balance of the
tax under dispute pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate
authority;
(c) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (a) or (b), where
a VAT dealer or TOT dealer or any other dealer has preferred
an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33, the stay,
if any, ordered under clause (b) shall be operative till the disposal
of the appeal by such Tribunal, and, the stay, if any ordered
under clause (a) shall be operative till the disposal of the appeal
by such Tribunal, only in case where the Additional
Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner on an application
made to him by the dealer in the prescribed manner, makes
specific order to that effect.
(4) The appellate authority may, within a period of two years from
the date of admission of such appeal, after giving the appellant an
opportunity of being heard and subject to such rules as may be
prescribed:
(a) confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or the
penalty, or both; or
(b) set aside the assessment or penalty, or both, and direct the
authority prescribed to pass a fresh order after such further
enquiry as may be directed; or
(c) pass such other orders as it may think fit.
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
(4A) Where any proceeding under this section has been deferred
on account of any stay orders granted by the High Court or
Supreme Court in any case or by reason of the fact that an appeal
or other proceeding is pending before the High Court or the
Supreme Court involving a question of law having a direct bearing
on the order or proceeding in question, the period during which
the stay order is in force or the period during which such appeal
or proceeding is pending, shall be excluded, while computing the
period of two years specified in sub-section (4) for the purpose of
passing appeal order under this section.
(5) Before passing orders under sub-section (4), the appellate
authority may make such enquiry as it deems fit or remand the
case to any subordinate officer or authority for an inquiry and
report on any specified point or points.
(6) Every order passed in appeal under this section shall, subject
to the provisions of sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 be final."
Going by the text of this provision, it is evident that the statutory
appeal is required to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the
order or proceeding was served on the assessee. If the appeal is filed
after expiry of prescribed period, the appellate authority is empowered
to condone the delay in filing the appeal, only if it is filed within a further
period of not exceeding 30 days and sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal within prescribed time is made out. The appellate authority is
not empowered to condone delay beyond the aggregate period of 60
days from the date of order or service of proceeding on the assessee, as
the case may be. In the present case, admittedly, the appeal was filed
way beyond the total 60 days' period specified in terms of Section 31 of
the 2005 Act. In that, the respondent had filed the appeal accompanied
by an application for condonation of delay setting out reasons in the
following words: -
"2. It is submitted that the impugned Order-in-Original dated
21.06.2017 was received by the Applicant on 22.06.2017 and the
appeal ought to have been filed by the applicant on 21.07.2017 in
terms of section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005. Thus,
there is delay in filing the appeal. The Applicants further submits
that the delay is not due to any negligence on part of the Applicant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
3. It is submitted that the impugned order was received by
Mr. P. Sriram Murthy, but the receipt of this assessment order
was not informed to any other person of the company.
4. Mr. P. Sriram Murthy was authorized to handle day to day
affairs of sales tax (VAT), service tax and excise and he was also
authorized to sign and submit documents with the tax departments,
file periodic tax returns and represent the company before
Concerned tax authorities.
5. However, the company has alleged Mr. P. Sriram Murthy with
committing certain irregularities for past more than 12 months
and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. He has been
suspended from his official duties with effect from 26th July 2018.
6. It is only post his suspension that the Applicant came to know
about the receipt of impugned order. Also, the Appellant has come
to know that Mr. Murthy paid the 12.5% of the demand amount
on 12.09.2017 as if it is a regular tax payment. Further, since he
did not file the appeal in time, therefore to protect himself from
the disciplinary action, he adopted alternate route and filed
rectification application under rule 60 which is not permissible
under law in case demand has been raised on technical grounds.
7. A separate affidavit as to the facts of the case is also attached
herewith.
8. It is stated that in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned
above and in the attached affidavit, your honor would appreciate
that the delay in filing the appeal is completely unintentional and
for the bona fide reasons stated above. The applicant company
should not be imposed with tax liabilities due to inaction and
malafide intention on one employee. The Applicants further submit
that if the delay in filing the above numbered appeal is not
condoned, the Applicant would be put to great injustice and
irreparable injury. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused
if the delay is condoned.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Ld. Appellate Joint
Commissioner (ST) be pleased to allow the application for
condonation of delay as prayed for."
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
As stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the
statutory appeal, the respondent caused to file affidavit of Mr. Sreedhar
Routh, son of Late Mr. R. Seetha Rama Swamy, who was working as
Site Director in the respondent company. In this affidavit, in support of
the application for condonation of delay, it is averred thus: -
".....
That Mr. P. Sriram Murthy, Deputy Manager-Finance, was
authorized to handle day to day affairs of sales tax (VAT), service
tax and excise. He was also authorized to sign and submit
documents with the tax departments, file periodic tax returns and
represent the company before concerned tax authorities.
that the CST assessment for the period 2013-14 was completed
by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU raising demand of
Rs.76,73,197/- vide assessment order dated 21.06.2017.
that the assessment order was received by Mr. P. Sriram Murthy.
But, the receipt of this assessment order was not informed to any
other person of the company.
that Mr. P. Sriram Murthy filed application under Rule 60 of the
Andhra Pradesh Act, 2005 without informing the company about
such filing.
that Mr. P. Sriram Murthy also engaged a Chartered Accountant
and filed an appeal against rejection of application filed under rule
60. The appointment of Chartered Accountant and filing this appeal
was also not informed to the company.
that the company has alleged Mr. P. Sriram Murthy with committing
certain irregularities and initiated disciplinary proceedings against
him.
that Mr. P. Sriram Murthy has been suspended from his official
duties with effect from 26th July 2018. Investigation in this matter
is going on.
that it is only post his suspension that we have come to know
about the demand of Rs.76,73,197/- lakhs raised vide CST
assessment order for the year 2013-2014 and therefore could not
respond or take any action in respect of this order/demand.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
It is prayed that the Ld. Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) be
pleased to allow the application for condonation of delay as prayed
for."
The appellate authority vide order dated 25.10.2018, considered
the reasons offered by the respondent for the delay in filing of the appeal
and concluded that the same were not substantiated with sufficient cause.
On that finding including that the delay beyond the period of 60 days
from the date of service of the assessment order on the respondentassessee cannot be condoned, the appellate authority observed thus: -
"However, to abide the principles of natural justice, the
appellant has been issued notices dated 03.10.2018 and 19.10.2018
to appear for admission hearings to be held on 10.10.2018 and
25.10.2018 respectively, in the office of Appellate Deputy
Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada for explaining reasons and his
contentions in support of the admission of appeal petition. The
A.R. appeared for the admission hearing on 25.10.2018 and
prayed for admission of appeal petition, but not submitted
any reliable grounds and substantial documentary evidence
in support of their submission that they were unaware of
the receipt of original assessment order.
It is further pertinent here to record that after receiving the
original assessment order, the appellant-dealer has filed a request
letter before the assessing authority for re-assessment under rule
60 of APVAT Rules, 2005. However, the AA has not considered
re-assessment request, and issued an endorsement dt.11.05.2018,
rejecting the re-assessment request. The appellant also filed an
appeal on such endorsement. That appeal petition based on
endorsement has also not been admitted in this office and rejected
vide ADC's orders no. 3470, dt. 17.08.2018. Therefore, cannot
be assumed under any circumstances, and by no stretch of
imagination that the appellant-dealer was not aware of the service
of original assessment orders. Hence, it is to be affirmed that the
causes put-forth for delay condonation are not rational and against
the facts of the case. It is also relevant here to state that whatever
may be circumstances, the delay beyond 60 days could not be
condonable in the hands of the appellate authority, therefore, such
request prima-facie is not in tune with the provisions of the Act,
hence, liable to be rejected.
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
From the aforesaid discussion, it is construed that no
favourable grounds can be made to admit the appeal, since the
appellant have failed to file appeal petition within the prescribed
time under APVAT Act, 2005. It is also pertinent here to note that
the Department has duly served the original assessment order to
the appellant without any procedural lapse, and also the appellant
has admitted that the original orders were received on 22.06.2017.
In view of the above, since the appellant failed to prefer an
appeal on the original assessment order dated 21.06.2017, which
was duly served on the appellant, and as such the original
assessment order has become final, and the present appeal filed
by the appellant on 24.09.2018 with a delay of 1 year 62 days,
hence cannot be admitted.
Further the appellants have not submitted any valid
reasons/sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within
the prescribed & condonable time of 30+30=60 days of
receipt of the original assessment order. Hence the appeal
petition is hereby REJECTED as per the provisions of
Section 31 of APVAT Act."
(emphasis supplied)
The appellate authority was pleased to reject the explanation that
the respondent was not aware of the service of assessment order, as it
remained unsubstantiated by the respondent. When the matter travelled
to the High Court, the Division Bench, after hearing the respondent,
proceeded to pass an ex-parte order on 8.11.2018, which reads thus: -
"ORDER:
It is represented by Mr. S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the
disputed tax, for the purpose of filing an appeal. But, the employee,
who was incharge and who was subsequently, suspended in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, failed to file the appeal.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
issue lies in a narrow campus.
Since the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed
tax, the request of the petitioner for granting one more opportunity
would be considered favourably, if the petitioner pays an additional
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
amount equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner
shall make such payment within a period of one week.
Post on 19.11.2018 for orders."
Be it noted that the respondent was advised to file writ petition
merely for setting aside of the assessment order dated 21.6.2017,
presumably, in light of the decision of Full bench of the same High Court
in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.7.
9. We may advert to the assertions made in the writ petition (on
the basis of which the High Court was pleased to grant relief to the
respondent), to explain the delay in filing of the statutory appeal including
the reason why the respondent should be given one opportunity. The
same read thus: -
".....
7. From the above, it can be summarized that the total disputed
demand has arisen on account of two reasons. Firstly, the 1st
Respondent has considered the total branch transfer turnover as
per monthly CST returns and ignored the revised turnover as per
VAT 200-B. Even though, the such revised stock transfer value
was considered by the 1st Respondent while computing the ITC
credit as per rule 20 (8) of AP VAT act. Secondly, receipt of
excess forms on account of inclusion of value of freebies, free
samples etc. by receiving state while issuing the F Forms. The 1st
Respondent treated these excess F Forms value as concealment
by the petitioner and levied tax even, on this branch transfer value
duly covered by F Forms which is [sic] grossly against the principle
of law.
8. It is submitted that the order was served on the petitioner on
22.6.2017 against which, the Petitioner could have preferred appeal
before the 2nd Respondent within 30 days from the said date.
Unfortunately, no steps were taken to file any appeal within the
due date for the reason that the day to day affairs of the Sales
Tax, Service Tax and Excise Law was being handled by one
Mr. P. Sri Ram Murthy, who was working as Deputy Manager
(Finance) in the Company, who failed to take 'appropriate steps
to prefer an appeal within time, by his negligence. Excepting
7 2018 (361) ELT 22(A.P.)
ASSTT. COMMR. (CT) LTU KAKINADA v. M/S. GLAXO SMITH
KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
Mr. P. Sri Ram Murthy, there was no other person who was well
conversant with the facts and the steps to be taken against the
assessment order. The other person Mr.