Page 61 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] ASSTT. COMMR. (CT), LTU v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE 307
REPRESENTED BY : Shri G.N. Reddy, AOR, for the Appellant.
Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, S/Shri
V. Lakshmikumaran, Aaditya Bhattacharya and
Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]. - 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 An-
dhra Pradesh (For short, “the High Court”) is : whether the High Court in exer-
cise 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 statuto-
ry 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 Com-
missioner of Commercial Taxes, Large Taxpayer Unit at Kakinada Division (For
short, “the Assistant Commissioner”) under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (For short, “the 2005 Act”) and the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956 (For short, “the 1956 Act”) and is engaged in the business of manufac-
turing and sale of Horlicks, Boost, Biscuits, Ghee, Ayurvedic 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 authorized representative of the respondent produced declaration
in Form “F” in support of its claim that certain transactions are inter-State trans-
fers. The information and declaration furnished by the respondent was duly veri-
fied 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 for-
ty 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 assess-
ment 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 applica-
tion under Rule 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (For
short, “the 2005 Rules”), 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 re-
spondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Com-
mercial Taxes, Vijayawada (For short, “the Appellate Deputy Commissioner” or
“the appellate authority”, as the case may be”) 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 peri-
od from 1-4-2013 to 31-3-2017. We are not concerned with the said order in the
present appeal.
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  61