APHC010107122024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3488]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6031/2024 Between:

M/s. Pearl Beverages Ltd., ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned G.P. for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner, who is registered under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, had suffered an order of revision, dated 06.05.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by way of an appeal. This appeal was initially granted registration bearing A.R.No.120 of 2019. The same was rejected by way of an order, dated 16.03.2023, which was communicated to the petitioner on 25.10.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for readmission of the appeal, under Section 33 of the A.P. VAT Act. The same was rejected by way of an endorsement, dated 05.03.2024. This rejection was on the ground that there is no power for the Tribunal to reject the case.

2. It appears that the appeal itself had not been numbered. The appeal appears to have been rejected under the provisions of Rule 7 of A.P. VAT Tribunal Regulations. In such circumstances, there is no provision for rejection of an appeal, which has been rejected at the stage of scrutiny. However, the fact remains that Rule 7 (4) of the Regulations require reasons to be recorded when an appeal is rejected at this stage.

3. In the present case, the appeal, appears to have been rejected, solely on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner. Such an order of rejection does not meet the requirements of Rule 7(4) of the Regulations. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of rejection dated 16.03.2023 and the subsequent endorsement dated 05.03.2024. The Tribunal is directed to proceed further, either accepting the appeal or rejecting the appeal, if it is found to be defective, after hearing the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ___________________

HARINATH.N, J Js.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO &

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N W.P.No.6031 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

12^th February, 2025 Js