SRI DHANALAKSHMI RICE AND BOILED RICE MILL Vs. THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT), GUNTUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a rice miller. For the Assessment Year 2007 -08 the petitioner was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 levying tax @ 4% on interstate sales not covered by C Forms and on the export sales as penultimate exporter @ 4%. Aggrieved by the said assessment order dated 31.03.2011 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur on 08.06.2011 and the same was numbered as Appeal No. 28/11 -121/NLR and was admitted. However, by show cause notice dated 12.08.2013 issued by the first respondent the petitioner was informed that the petitioner's appeal which was filed without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 31 of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 was erroneously admitted by oversight and accordingly the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the admission of the appeal should not be withdrawn. Though the petitioner submitted the explanation stating that the proposed action was impermissible under law, the first respondent did not accept the same and passed the order dated 19.08.2013 rejecting the petitioner's appeal as "Admission of appeal withdrawn". Assailing the said order dated 19.08.2013 the present writ petition is filed. As could be seen, the objection raised by the first respondent was that the admitted tax and 12.5% of the disputed tax payable within thirty days as provided under Section 31 of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 was paid by the petitioner beyond the prescribed time of thirty days and therefore the petitioner's appeal ought not to have been admitted. Claiming that the petitioner's appeal was admitted by oversight by the then Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur, and that it requires rectification, the impugned order came to be passed purportedly in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 60 of the A.P. VAT Rules, 2005 (for short "The Rules").

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having carefully gone through the material available on record it appears to us that even assuming that the petitioner's appeal was admitted by oversight ignoring the fact that the pre -deposit was made beyond the prescribed period, the same cannot be termed as clerical or arithmetical mistake which can be corrected under Rule 60 of the Rules.

(3.) WE have also observed that the petitioner's appeal was received in the office of the 1st respondent and was admitted on 20.08.2011. Having kept the appeal pending for more than two years, we are of the opinion that the 1st respondent was not justified in rejecting the appeal at the fag end of the proceedings merely on the ground that the pre -deposit was not made within the prescribed period. Admittedly the first respondent did not go into the merits of the case while passing the impugned order.