Filing Statutory Appeal After Writ Proceedings Concluded Is Abuse Of Process: Andhra Pradesh High Court Imposes Cost

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the filing of the statutory appeal by the writ petitioner after writ proceedings and subsequent proceedings against the same order of assessment, just to avoid the compliance of the directions of the writ Court, is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court.

The bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Kiranmayee Mandava has observed that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings and the subsequent proceedings from the period of limitation for filing an appeal, for the reason that the petitioner's writ petition was entertained and the assessment order against which the statutory appeal has been filed was already set aside in the writ proceedings. The orders were affirmed by the Apex Court.

The petitioner or assessee challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner rejected the petitioner's appeal at the admission stage on the ground that the statutory appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation of three months and also beyond a further condonable period of one month under Sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction under the APGST Act to condone the delay beyond the condonable period of one month.

The statutory appeal was preferred against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner for the tax period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 under the APGST Act, by which the Assessing Authority had levied a tax of Rs. 27,79,82,874/-, interest of Rs. 5,36,10,496 and a penalty of Rs. 23,79,26,090/-, for a total of Rs. 56,95,19,460/-.

The petitioner initially, bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal, preferred the writ petition against the same order of the Assessing Authority.

The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated March 24, 2023, holding that the petitioner ought to have been extended some more opportunity for a personal hearing. The assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the assessing authority for decision on the condition that the petitioner deposit 50% of the tax component within the specified time.

The petitioner preferred the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. The apex court did not interfere with the judgment. However, all the contentions of the petitioner were kept open, and the assessing officer was directed to deal with the merits of those objections while passing the reasoned order. Further, in view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, as regards payments made of more than Rs. 30 crore, it was kept open to the petitioner to seek clarification in that regard from the High Court.

On May 10, 2024, the petitioner filed the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the APGST Act, with delay, which has been rejected by the Appellate Authority.

The petitioner did not comply with the judgment and order even after it was affirmed by the dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court.

The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the statutory appeal was caused by the petitioner availing of the writ remedy and the subsequent proceedings as mentioned above. He submitted that consequently, the period consumed in availing the writ remedy deserved exclusion, and the appellate authority ought to have condoned the delay. Having failed to do so, the appellate authority deserves to be directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits.

The department contended that the petitioner has no sufficient cause for condonation of delay by this Court. The petitioner has not complied with the writ court's order and is not entitled to again invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The court held that filing the statutory appeal and approaching this Court in writ jurisdiction is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

The court imposed the costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to the credit of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravathi, within a period of 15 days, failing which, the Registrar General shall take necessary steps to recover the same.

Counsel For Petitioner: Venkatram Reddy Mantur

Counsel For Respondent: S. A. V. Saikumar

Case Title: Reddy Enterprises Versus The Appellate Authority & Additional Commissioner

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 12355 Of 2024

Click Here To Read The Order