The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a writ petition challenging Assessment Orders under the CST Act, considering grounds of limitation, lack of opportunity for hearing, and violation of principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

As both the writ petitions are interconnected, the same are disposed of by this common order.

2. Assailing the Assessment Order No.63500, dated 31.03.2017, for the year 2012-13 under the CST Act, passed by the first respondent, as barred by limitation and the same came to be passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, W.P.No.3905 of 2021 came to be filed.

3. While W.P.No.3795 of 2021 came to be filed, seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned Assessment Order No.116695, dated 15.03.2018 for the year 2013-14 under the CST Act, passed by the first respondent, as barred by limitation and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner.

4. Since the facts in both the cases are similar in nature, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in W.P.No.3905 of 2021 by taking it as a lead petition, which are as under:-

(a) The petitioner herein is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent, doing business in Manganese Ore. The petitioner, is a registered dealer under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [for short, “APVAT Act”] and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [for short “CST Act”]. It is stated that the international exports are exempt under Section 5(1) of CST Act, subject to production of documentary evidence namely Purchase Order of the Foreign Buyer, Proof of export and receipt of consideration in foreign exchange. In respect of inter-state sales against ‘C’ forms, the turnover is liable to be taxed @ 2%, provided the entire declarations are filed, covering the turnover. In respect of transit sales, they are exempt under Section 6(2) read with Section 3(b) of the CST Act, provided ‘E1’ forms from the first Inter-State sales and ‘C’ forms from the buyers are filed.

(b) While things stood thus, first respondent passed an adverse order for the year 2012-13 levying tax @ 14.5% on the entire turnover, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the documentary evidence in support of his claim for exemption towards exports and transit sales and ‘C’ forms for concessional rate of tax. The said order which was passed on 31.03.2017 was served on to the petitioner on 05.05.2017. Because of ill-health and hospitalization, the petitioner could not take any steps to challenge the same within the time prescribed under Section 31 of the APVAT Act. However, on 04.12.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, wherein, he claimed that the exports turnover do not relate to the sales of the foreign country but sales to SEZ Units within India, which are also not liable to tax, provided Form-I declarations are given by SEZ Units, for the transit sales as well. The said appeal was filed with a delay of 540 days. Though, reasons given for filing the appeal with a delay, were accepted, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the ground that he has no authority or jurisdiction to condone the delay. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the APVAT Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam vide T.A.No.207 of 2019 questioning the rejection of the appeal by the second respondent. The said appeal was also dismissed on the ground that though delay in filing is explained and is acceptable but the same cannot be condoned beyond a period of thirty [30] days, when the provisions of the Limitation Act, are not applicable, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 80 VST 492. Now, the present writ petition is filed challenging the original Order of Assessment itself, as barred by limitation and that the order came to be passed, without giving an opportunity of hearing before confirming the liability.

5. Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, mainly submits that though the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent and thereafter approached APVAT Appellate Tribunal, seeking to condone the delay, there is no bar to challeng