APHC010349462022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23572/2022 Between: 1. M/S.SATHYA EXPLOSIVES, SY. NO. 31/2B, KONARI GOLLAPALE VILLAGE, V. KOTA MANDAL 517 424, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P., REP. BY ITS PARTNER, A. NARSAIAH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT, CHITTOOR DIVISION, NEXT TO DEVI THEATRE, OPP. TO BHAGYA LAKSHMI MOTORS, TIRUPATHI ROAD, KATTAMANCHALI. CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR-II CIRCLE, NEXT TO DEVI THEATRE, OPP. TO BHAGYA LAKSHMI MOTORS, TIRUPATHI ROAD, KATTAMANCHALI. CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tobe pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the impugned Suo Motu Revision Order passed by the First Respondent vide A.O. 2 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.23572 of 2022 no.ZH3705220D23541, dated 29-05-2022, revising the Assessment Order A.O. no. 51771, dated 31-01-2017 passed by the Second Respondent for the Assessment year 2014-15 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as barred by limitation, violative of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, capricious, without basis or material and on mere assumptions, presumptions and conjectures, without jurisdiction and therefore unsustainable and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including taking up fresh Assessment under APVAT Act, 2005, pursuant to the impugned Revision Order passed by the First Respondent vide A.O. no. ZH3705220D23541, dated 29-05-2022, for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.23572 of 2022 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”), had been served with an order of assessment, dated 31.01.2017, for the period 2014-15. Thereafter, an order of re-assessment came to be passed on 29.05.2022. 3. This order of re-assessment, dated 29.05.2022, passed by the 1st respondent, came to be challenged in this Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner raised various grounds of challenge, including the ground that the impugned re-assessment order has been passed beyond the period of limitation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to Section 32 (3) of the A.P. VAT Act, in as much as the provisions of the CST Act are to be administered through the machinery provisions of the AP VAT Act. Section 32 (3) of the A.P. VAT Act reads as follows: “(3) In relation to an order of assessment passed under the Act, the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be exercisable only within a period of four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer.” 4 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.23572 of 2022 6. This provision requires the order of re-assessment to be passed within a period of 4 years from the date of the original assessment. Since the date of original assessment was on 31.01.2017, the period of 4 years would end by 30.01.2021. However, the order of re-assessment came to be passed on 29.05.2022, which is beyond the 4 year period prescribed under Section 32 (3) of the VAT Act. 7. The respondents, in their counter affidavits, took the stand that the period stipulated under Section 32 (3) would stand extended on account of Covid pandemic as in the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 and 10.01.2022 in M.A.No.21 of 2022 in M.A.No.665 of 2021 in Suo Moto W.P(C).No.3 of 2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that the period between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021 would be excluded for the purposes of calculation of limitation. 8. The question of whether such extent of limitation would be applicable to the Assessing Authority had come up before a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.12529 of 2024. The Division Bench, after considering the various Judgments, relating to this issue, had held that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would apply only to the litigants, who are seeking to approach the appropriate Courts and such extension of limitation would not be available to an authority acting under any statute. 9. Following the said Judgment, it would be appropriate to hold that the impugned order of re-assessment, dated 29.05.2022, is beyond limitation. 5 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.23572 of 2022 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of re-assessment, dated 29.05.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Date: 09.07.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.23572 of 2022 311 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23572 of 2022 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 09.07.2025 MJA