APHC010293242006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 69/2006 Between: 1. M/S. KANAKADURGA WINES, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE, before the STAT., A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2006(TREVCMP 25 OF 2006 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad in T.A.No.330 of 2000 dated 27.2.2006. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(TREVCMP 31 OF 2008 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 to vacate the interim stay dt. 26.09.2006 granted in TRCMP.No. 25/2006 in TRC.No. 69/2006 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S CHAKRAPANI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. SURIBABU S(SPL SC FOR CT AP) 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had been assessed, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the year 1993-1994 by the assessing authority. This order was sought to be revised by the Deputy Commissioner by issuance of a show-cause notice, dated 15.09.1997. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order ostensibly on 01.09.1998. This order was served on the petitioner on 10.04.1999. Aggrieved by the order of revision, the petitioner approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal including the contention that the order of revision has been passed beyond the limitation. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the limitation ended on 01.07.1998, whereas the order had been served on the petitioner only on 10.04.1999. It is the contention of the petitioner that the inordinate delay in service of the impugned order would arise a presumption that the order had been passed beyond the limitation. However, the Tribunal held that there was violation of principles of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for passing an order of revision. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has moved the present revision on the ground that an order of remand would effectively take away its claim that the order of revision has been passed beyond the period of limitation. 4 4. Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the judgments of Full Bench of the erstwhile-undivided High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ushodaya Enterprises Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad1, the judgment of a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Santhosh Builders v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT), Nellore and Others2 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. M.Ramaishtaiah & Co. 3 . In all the aforesaid judgments, a consistent view has been taken by the Court that inordinate delay in the service of orders, especially when such service is beyond the period of limitation for passing such orders, would arise a presumption that the order had been passed beyond limitation and would have to set aside. 5. In the present case, the order under challenge, is said to have been passed on 01.07.1998. However, this order was not served on the petitioner within time and came to be served only on 10.04.1999, which is about ten (10) months after the order is said to have been passed. There is no explanation for the delay in the service of this order. 6. In the circumstances, following the aforesaid judgments, it would have to be held that the presumption that the order had been passed beyond the period of limitation would arise in the present case. 1 (1998) 111 STC 711 (FB) : 1998 SCC OnLine AP 920 2 (2013) 57 VST 55 : 2011 SCC OnLine AP 1074 3 (1994) 93 STC 406 5 7. Accordingly, this revision case is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 01.07.1998 and the order of the Tribunal, dated 27.02.2006. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 28.01.2026 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 69/2006 Date: 28.01.2026 KA