Page 69 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] ASSTT. COMMR. (CT), LTU v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE 315
ment order on 22-6-2017 and failure to file the appeal within 60 days would
mean that the assessment order has attained finality.
16. The petitioner submits that filing of a further appeal to the APVAT
Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam is a futile exercise, since as a creature
under the Act, the Tribunal cannot find fault with the 2nd Respondent for
not condoning the delay beyond 30 days.
17. The petitioner has lost the appellate remedy by efflux of time. It does
not mean that the Petitioner should be left remediless. The petitioner sub-
mits that a full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Electronics Corporation of India
Limited (Writ Petition Nos. 9482 and 9485 of 2017, dated 13-3-2018, dealing
with similar situation, under Central Excise Act, held that even if the appeal
time under the Act has expired, it does not prevent the assessee from pre-
ferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
10. The High Court finally allowed the writ petition vide the impugned
judgment and order on the ground that the statutory remedy had become inef-
fective for the respondent (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, despite the reason men-
tioned by the respondent of an extraordinary situation due to the act of commis-
sion and omission of its employee who was in charge of the tax matters, forcing
the management 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 was
also impressed by the contention pressed into service by the respondent that it
ought to be given one opportunity to explain to the authority (Assistant Com-
missioner) about the discrepancies between the value reported in the CST returns
and the amount indicated in Form “F” relating to the turnover. The additional
reason as can be discerned from the impugned order is that the respondent had
already deposited an additional amount equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax
amount in terms of the earlier order. We deem it apposite to reproduce the im-
pugned order of the High Court. The same reads thus : -
“…..
The impugned order of assessment is dated 21-6-2017. As against the
said order the petitioner filed an appeal with a delay. Since the delay was
beyond the period after which it can be condoned, the same was not enter-
tained. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.
The reason stated by the petitioner is that one of the employees who
was in charge, indulged in malpractices forcing the management to sus-
pend him and initiate disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner claims that
they were not aware of these orders. Therefore, the petitioner seeks one op-
portunity.
The reason why the petitioner seeks one opportunity is that ‘F’ forms
submitted by the petitioner were rejected by the Assessing Officer, on the
ground that the value of the goods transferred to branch office have not
been disclosed in ‘F’ forms. But the claim of the petitioner is that the value
was wrongly reported in the CST returns and that the amount indicated in
the ‘F’ forms was more than the turnover. Therefore, they seek one oppor-
tunity to explain this discrepancy.

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  69