IMPORTANT POINT
The petitioner cannot seek exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings for filing an appeal, as the writ petition was entertained and resulted in a final order, constituting an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Saikumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

“…to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 107 of the Act as the 1st Respondent has no power to condone the delay beyond four months and the Summary of the Order of the 2nd Respondent dated 10.11.2022 passed for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022 under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 and the State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, as arbitrary contrary to the provisions of the CGST / SGST Act 2017 without jurisdiction and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the Endorsement Proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 27.05.2024 uploaded in the GST Portal on 27.05.2024 and Summary of the Order, dated 10.11.2022 of the 2nd Respondent and pass such other order or orders…..”

Facts of the case:

3. The petitioner – M/s. Reddy Enterprises, Vijayawada challenges the Order dated 27.05.2024 (Ex.P1) passed by the Additional Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada (P1). By the said Order, the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected at the admission stage on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation of three months, and also beyond further condonable period of one month under Sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘APGST Act’), and the said Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction under the APGST Act to condone the delay beyond condonable period of one month.

4. The appeal was preferred against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Governorpet Circle, Vijayawada-II Division (in short ‘the Assessing Authority’) dated 10.11.2022 for the tax period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 under the APGST Act, by which the Assessing Authority had levied tax of Rs.27,79,82,874/-, interest Rs.5,36,10,496 and penalty of Rs.23,79,26,090/- in total an amount of Rs.56,95,19,460/-.

5. Against the same order of the Assessing Authority dated 10.11.2022 passed under Section 74 of the APGST Act, the petitioner initially, bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal, preferred W.P.No.1433 of 2023 (M/s.Reddy Enterprises v. State of A.P & ors.). The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 24.03.2023 holding that the petitioner ought to have been extended some more opportunity for personal hearing. The assessment Order dated 10.11.2022 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for decision, on the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the tax component within the specified time.

6. The operative part of the judgment dated 24.03.2023 in W.P.No.1433 of 2023 is as under:

“Accordingly, without reference to the merits of the petitioner’s case, the impugned Assessment Order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside on the condition of petitioner depositing 50% of tax component of Rs.23,79,26,090/- as mentioned in the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such deposit, the 3rd respondent shall fix a date for personal hearing of the petitioner with regard to her objections to the proposed assessment and after hearing the petitioner, pass an appropriate Assessment Order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously. In case, the petitioner fails to make the deposit as mentioned supra, this order shall be deemed cancel. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.”

7. The petitioner preferred SLP(c) No.9616 of 2023 which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide Order dated 17.05.2023, which reads as under:

“It is contended by the petitioner t