Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :22.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010477492021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28776/2021 Between: 1. M/S RASHEED TRADERS, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR. T. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O. T. ABDUL SATTAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D.NO. 9/297, MUGUTIPET, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT, TIRUPATI. CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERI, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, YEMMIGANUR UNIT, 0/O. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER -I, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.28776 of 2021 pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned order dated 08-09-2021 vide Annexure-P 1 in Ref. No. ZH3709210D69096/S.No 05/2021-22(KNL) rejecting the appeal petition filed by the Petitioner on 03-04-2021 alongside the proof of payment of predeposit @ 12.5 percent on 24-03-2021 without calling for the assessment record for the assessment year 2010-11 (CST) containing the representation of the Petitioner dated 03-03-2021 and the registration certificate file as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper in breach of principles of natural justice as also ultravires sub section (1) of section 31 of APVAT Act 2005 r/w Rule 63 and 64 of the APVAT Rules 2005 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of 08-09-2021 r/w the proceedings of assessment dated 18-03-2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BATTU SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.28776 of 2021 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was registered under the C.S.T. Act. An order of assessment is said to have been passed in the case of the petitioner, for the assessment year, 2010-2011, on 18.03.2015, under the C.S.T. Act. 2. The petitioner, by a communication, dated 03.03.2021, had contended that, he had not received the order of assessment, dated 18.03.2015, and requested the Assessing Authority to furnish a certified copy of the said order, to enable the petitioner to file an Appeal, against the said order. The Assessing Authority, furnished a certified copy of the order, on 04.03.2021 itself, Thereupon, the petitioner filed an Appeal, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. 3. This Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, on 08.09.2021, holding that the order of assessment had been served on the petitioner, on 10.04.2015, in as much as the said order was served on one Sri B. Mallikarjun, and he had the service of the original assessment order. 4. The Appellate Authority took the view that the Appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation in as much as Section 31 of the A.P.V.A.T. Act, provided for a period of 30 days, for filing an Appeal, and an additional period of 30 days, subject to the condition of the Appellate Authority, condoning any delay beyond 30 days, whereas the present Appeal had been filed, six (06) years after the order of assessment had been served. 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.28776 of 2021 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 6. Heard Dr. M. V. K. Moorthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Battu Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents. 7. The case of the petitioner is that, Sri B. Mallikarjun, is not known to the petitioner and service on said Sri B. Mallikarjun, would not amount to service on the petitioner. The petitioner is also relied upon Form VAT 100B, which is filed by every dealer, at the time of registration, giving the details of the person on whom process could be served, under the provisions of the A.P.V.A.T. Act. 8. Dr. M. V. K. Moorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would draw the attention of this Court to this Form, for the purpose of demonstrating that, no person except the petitioner himself was authorized to receive any notice or proceedings, under the A.P.V.A.T. Act, and consequently, the C.S.T. Act. The learned counsel would also contend that,service deemed to have been completed only if such service is completed on the persons mentioned in Form VAT 100 B. 9. The Appellate Authority, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent, has filed a counter-affidavit, stating that, the order had been served on Sri B. Mallikarjun, and that is sufficient for limitation to commence from the date of service of the order on Sri B. Mallikarjun. 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.28776 of 2021 10. Any service of notice or proceedings on any dealer can only be done either on the dealer himself or on the persons authorized to receive such notice and proceedings, under Form VAT 100 B. As Sri B. Mallikarjun is not a person designated, under said Form VAT 100 B, submitted by the petitioner, at the time of registration, it must be held that, there was no service of the order of assessment, dated 18.03.2015, on the petitioner, till a certified copy was served on the petitioner, on 04.03.2021. 11. In such circumstances, it must be held that the Appeal filed by the petitioner was within time. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 08.09.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent and the Appeal is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to decide on merits. 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:22.06.2026 KPV Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.28776 of 2021 231 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.28776 of 2021 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 22.06.2026 KPV