1 RRR,J & Dr. YLR,J W.P.Nos.7957, 7972 & 8081/2023 APHC010155372023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3536] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos:7957, 7972 & 8081 of 2023 W.P.Nos.7957,n 7972 & 8081/2023 Between: M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Limited ...PETITIONER AND Commercial Tax Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As the petitioner in all three writ petitions are one and the same and since the issues raised in these three writ petitions are also same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2 RRR,J & Dr. YLR,J W.P.Nos.7957, 7972 & 8081/2023 2. Heard Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned G.P. for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was assessed to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the periods, mentioned below, by way of assessment orders, whose dates are also given below: Writ Petition No. Period of Assessment Date of Assessment order W.P.No.8081/2023 2014-2015 12.07.2021 W.P.No.7972/2023 2015-2016 23.02.2020 W.P.No.7957/2023 2016-2017 30.07.2021 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders of assessment has approached this Court by way of the present set of writ petitions. 5. Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that all the above orders are barred by limitation, in as much as the said orders have been passed more than four years after the relevant assessment periods had concluded. 6. The respondent authorities have filed counter affidavit contending that the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer had been extended by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.3/2020, dated 23.03.2020, 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022, wherein the period for filing of appeals, suits, 3 RRR,J & Dr. YLR,J W.P.Nos.7957, 7972 & 8081/2023 petitions etc., available to the parties initiating such litigation, had been extended from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. 7. A similar issue had come up before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12529 of 2024, which was disposed of by the judgment dated 21.04.2025. In the said judgment, this Court, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in S. Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District1 and the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in V-Guard Industries Limited vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Mangalagiri Circle and Ors.,2 had held that the benefit of extension of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not be available to the authorities exercising power under various statutes and the said extension of limitation would be available only to the members of the general public who had approached the relevant Fora, after the period of limitation had expired. 8. In the present case, Rule 14A(5A) of the A.P. Central Sales Tax (A.P.) Rules, stipulates that every dealer shall be deemed to have been assessed to tax, based on the returns filed by him, if no assessment is made within a period of four years from the date of filing of the return. 9. This would mean that any assessment would have to be carried out within four years from the date on which the returns would have to be filed. 1 2020 SCC Online SC 529 2 2022 (3) ALD 77 4 RRR,J & Dr. YLR,J W.P.Nos.7957, 7972 & 8081/2023 10. Since the returns, under the Central Sales Tax Act, are to be filed on a monthly basis, by the 20th day of the succeeding month, the period of limitation, available for assessment, would be four years from 20th day of the succeeding month of the month under consideration. 11. In the present case, the assessments carried out, in relation to the assessment orders 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, are clearly beyond the period of four years from the last date on which the returns are to be filed for the month of March for these two assessment orders. As far as the assessment for the year 2015-2016 is concerned, the return for the month of March, 2016 would have been filed by 20th April 2016 and consequently, the assessment for the month of March could have been carried out up to 20th April 2020. As the assessment order has been passed on 23.03.2020, it would have to be held that the assessment for the year 2015-2016, except for the month of March, is beyond limitation. 12. In that view of the matter, the assessment for the years 2014- 2015 and 2016-2017 have to be held to be beyond limitation and the assessment orders dated 12.07.2021 and 30.07.2021 stand set aside. As far as the assessment year 2015-2016 is concerned, the assessment order would have to be set aside for the period April 2015 to February, 2016. In such situation a fresh assessment would have to be made for the month of March 2016. Accordingly, the entire assessment is set aside and the assessment for the month of March 2016 is remanded back to the Assessing Officer. 5 RRR,J & Dr. YLR,J W.P.Nos.7957, 7972 & 8081/2023 13. Accordingly, these three writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Js. 6 RRR,J & Dr. YLR,J W.P.Nos.7957, 7972 & 8081/2023 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO And HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO W.P.No.7957, 7972 & 8081 of 2023 30th April, 2025 Js