Page 65 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] ASSTT. COMMR. (CT), LTU v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE 311
Mr. Murthy paid the 12.5% of the demand amount on 12-9-2017 as if it is a
regular tax payment. Further, since he did not file the appeal in time, there-
fore to protect himself from the disciplinary action, he adopted alternate
route and filed rectification application under Rule 60 which is not permis-
sible 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 liabil-
ities due to inaction and mala fide intention on one employee. The Appli-
cants 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.”
As stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the statutory ap-
peal, 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 depart-
ments, file periodic tax returns and represent the company before con-
cerned tax authorities.
that the CST assessment for the period 2013-14 was completed by the Assis-
tant Commissioner (CT) LTU raising demand of Rs. 76,73,197/- vide as-
sessment order dated 21-6-2017.
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 appoint-
ment 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 cer-
tain 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 re-
spect of this order/demand.

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  65