(H.L. Dattu, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.)
Innovatives Systems, Rep. by its Managing Partner ________ Appellant;
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (CT-II) Department and Others ____________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 2230 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1832 of 2015], decided on February 23, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Innovative Systems v. CTO1, dated 30.12.2014.
3. The respondent No. 3 – Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vishakhapatnam passed an assessment order, dated 28.03.2014 determining the additional tax liability of a sum of Rs. 2,29,32,219/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Nine Lacs Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen only) payable by the appellantherein.
4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer the appellant-herein preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam issued notice dated 18.09.2014 stating therein that and the appeal is not filed in accordance with Section 31 read with Rule 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules (for short, “the Rules”) and the pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax demand provided under the Rules was not deposited.
5. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam had rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant-herein on the ground that the appellant has failed to pay the pre-deposit of the disputed tax demand.
6. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam the appellant preferred writ petition before the High Court. The High Court relying upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the same High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court the appellant is before us in this civil appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance of the notice issued by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam, dated 18.09.2014 the appellant has deposited the pre-deposit on 18.12.2014.
9. It is an admitted fact that after the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the appellant had deposited the pre-deposit as directed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam.
10. In a scenario like this, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have condone the delay in complying with the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam and should have directed him to decide the appeal on merits. Since that has not been done by the High Court, we take exception to the said order.
11. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order1 passed by the High Court. We now restore the appeal filed by the appellant-herein before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vishakhapatnam to decide the same on merits.
12. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open.
13. Ordered accordingly.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1832/2015
M/s. Innovatives Systems, Rep. by its Managing Partner _____ Petitioner
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (CT-II) Department and Ors ________________ Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for bring on record subsequent event and interim relief and office report)
Date : 23/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before H.L. Dattu, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arjun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv.
Mr. Mukunda Rao, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
14. Leave granted.
15. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
1 WP No. 40746 of 2014, order dated 30-12-2014 (Hyd)
