1 APHC010165632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3535] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHY WRIT PETITION NO: 8800/2025 Between: Sri Balaji Granites And Metals ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had suffered an order of assessment, dated 10.12.2022, for the periods 2017-2018 to August 2020 and 2021-2022. Aggrieved by this order of assessment passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner had filed an appeal, before the 2nd respondent, on 03.11.2023. The 2nd respondent rejected this appeal on the ground that the appeal had been filed with a delay of 78 days against which only a period of 30 days could be condoned. The 2nd 2 respondent for the purpose of calculating the delay of 78 days had treated the date of order as 18.05.2023. The 2nd respondent, on this basis, had rejected the appeal at the admission stage, by an endorsement, dated 09.08.2024. 2. Aggrieved by this order of rejection as well as the original assessment order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the original order of assessment was passed on 10.12.2022 and the summary of the order was issued on 18.05.2023. The learned counsel would further submit that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against any order passed before 31.03.2023, had been extended up to 31.11.2024, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.551, dated 16.11.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the original order was passed before 31.03.2023, the petitioner had the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.551 and was permitted to file an appeal before 31.01.2024. However, the 2nd respondent had rejected the appeal as if the orders had been passed on 18.05.2023, after the cutoff date of 31.03.2023. 5. A perusal of the endorsement of the 2nd respondent shows that the date of the order was taken to be 18.05.2023 whereas the order in original was passed on 10.12.2022. In the circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.551, dated 16.11.2023, and the appeal 3 would be maintainable. Therefore, the endorsement, dated 09.08.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to decide the case on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the original order of assessment would have to be set aside on the sole ground of not containing a DIN number. 7. As the said issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court in favour of the tax payer, it can be said without any controversy, that the appellate authority would follow the said orders. 8. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the Endorsement, dated 09.08.2024, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to number the appeal and to pass orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J ________________________ B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHY,J RJS 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHY WRIT PETITION NO: 8800/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 23.04.2025 RJS