Page 67 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] ASSTT. COMMR. (CT), LTU v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE 313
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 peti-
tioner 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 peti-
tioner is that the issue lies in a narrow campus.
Since the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax, the re-
quest of the petitioner for granting one more opportunity would be consid-
ered favourably, if the petitioner pays an additional 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 set-
ting 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. v. Union of India & Ors. [2018 (361) E.L.T. 22 (A.P.)].
9. We may advert to the assertions made in the writ petition (on the ba-
sis of which the High Court was pleased to grant relief to the respondent), to ex-
plain the delay in filing of the statutory appeal including the reason why the re-
spondent should be given one opportunity. The same reads 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 con-
sidered the total branch transfer turnover as per monthly CST returns and
ignored the revised turnover as per VAT 200-B. Even though, the such re-
vised stock transfer value was considered by the 1st Respondent while
computing the ITC credit as per Rule 20(8) of AP VAT Act. Secondly, re-
ceipt of excess forms on account of inclusion of value of freebies, free sam-
ples 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 han-
dled 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 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. Sid-
dhant Belgaonker, Senior Manager (Finance) who attended the assessment

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  67