APHC010183152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9411/2025 Between: M/s Ayyappa Boatsmen Cooperative Society Ltd ...PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO 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, who is a cooperative society of boatsmen, had been given certain sand quarry leases for the years 2011-12 to 2013-14. The 1st respondent, on the basis of Vigilance & Enforcement report, had assessed the petitioner to tax for the years 2011-12 to 2013-14, by way of an order of assessment, dated 17.05.2019. 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.9411 of 2025 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above order, filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who partly allowed the appeal, by way of an order, dated 22.11.2023, setting aside the assessment for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14, on the ground of limitation and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority, for the years relating to 2013-14. Certain directions are also said to have been given by the Appellate Authority, while remanding the matter back to the 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent had again passed a fresh order, dated 12.09.2024, by assessing the turn-over of the petitioner, on the basis of the Vigilance & Enforcement report, and levied tax @ 5 % under the AP VAT Act. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order needs to be set aside, as the same is beyond limitation and on the ground that the directions, of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, had not been followed by the 1st respondent, while passing the assessment order. 6. We do not propose to go into the question of limitation or the non- compliance of the directions of the Additional Deputy Commissioner as any observations made by us would affect the hearing in the appeal. 7. We are of the opinion that this matter, can very well be taken up by the Additional Deputy Commissioner rather than this Court, in as much as 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.9411 of 2025 the essential requirements of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice, do not prima facie appear to be available. 8. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Additional Deputy Commissioner concerned. However, in view of the fact that this is a second round of litigation and the petitioner had alreay paid the requisite taxes for filing of the appeal, in the first round, it would be appropriate that the petitioner is not called upon to pay any additional money as a condition to precedent for filing the appeal. 9. Needless to say, the time taken for approaching this Court shall be excluded, while calculating limitation and accordingly, the time from the date of filing of this Writ Petition till date of obtaining a copy of this order shall be excluded, for purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 16.04.2025 MJA 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.9411 of 2025 64 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9411 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 16.04.2025 MJA