Factual Background:

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. However, the same had become time barred in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Section 31 states 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 delay cannot be condoned beyond the aggregate period of 60 days

The assessee sought to justify the delay to be of an extraordinary situation wherein due to the act of commission and omission of its employee who was in charge of the tax matters, the management was forced 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 allowed the writ petition on the on the ground that the statutory remedy had become ineffective for the assessee (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.

On an appeal filed by the Tax Department, the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations reversing the  judgment of Hon’ble High Court:-

Key Observations

  1.  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.
  2. 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.
  3. The Hon’ble Court  also rejected the submission canvassed on behalf of the asssessee that in the peculiar facts of that case (as urged in the present case), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, so that complete justice can be done.
  4. Hence, it was held that 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.

         

          *Assistant Commissioner vs . Glaxo Smith Kline health Care Ltd. [77 G S.T.R. 342 (SC)]