Date of reserved for orders : 22.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010528852022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos: 32756 and 32758 of 2022 W.P.No.32756 of 2022 Between: 1. M/S. DEVA MINERAL WATER, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, B. SREENIVASULU, D.No.8/1391, SIVA SAGAR BACK SIDE, GOOTY, GOOTY MANDAL, ANANTAPATURAMU DISTRICT, A.P. 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, GUNTAKAL CIRCLE, OLD GOOTY ROAD, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR COMMERCIAL Date of reserved for orders : 22.07.2026 25.08.2026 31.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos: 32756 and 32758 of 2022 M/S. DEVA MINERAL WATER, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, , D.No.8/1391, SIVA SAGAR BACK SIDE, GOOTY, GOOTY MANDAL, ANANTAPATURAMU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, GUNTAKAL CIRCLE, OLD GOOTY ROAD, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P. 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): Counsel for the Petitioner: G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3543] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA M/S. DEVA MINERAL WATER, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, , D.No.8/1391, SIVA SAGAR BACK SIDE, GOOTY, ...PETITIONER THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, GUNTAKAL CIRCLE, OLD GOOTY ROAD, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 The Court made the following Common Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Prayer in W.P.No.32756 of 2022 reads as follows: “………..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Mandamus holding that the impugned Ex-Parte Penalty Order passed by the First respondent vide A.O.No.ZH370721OD93953, dated 02.07.2021 (served on the petitioner only on 14.09.2022 pursuant to the direction of this High Court, dated 25.08.2022 in W.P.No.30280 of 2021) for the Tax Periods March, 2010, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and April to June, 2014, which was passed pursuant to the Remand Order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupati, is contrary to the binding remand directions contained in the remand order, suffers from the same infirmities as the earlier order which was set aside by the said Appellate Authority, arbitrary, without basis, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” Prayer in W.P.No.32758 of 2022 reads as follows: “………..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Mandamus holding that the impugned Ex-Parte Judgment Assessment Order passed by the First respondent vide A.O.No.162997, dated 04.07.2019 (served on the petitioner only on 14.09.2022 pursuant to the direction of this High Court, dated 25.08.2022 in W.P.No.30290 of 2021) for the Tax Periods March, 2010, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and April to June, 2014, which was passed pursuant to the Remand Order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupati, is contrary to the binding remand directions contained in the remand order, suffers from the same infirmities as the earlier order which was set aside by the said Appellate Authority, arbitrary, without basis, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Before delving into the matters, which are disposed of by this common order, it may be appropriate to mention that the 1st respondent passed an Order of Assessment dated 04.07.2019 against the petitioner, a Registered Dealer under A.P.V.A.T. Act, 2005 with TIN No.3728147091 and doing business of selling mineral water by setting up a Mineral Plant, for the Assessment Period March, 2010, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and April to 3 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 June, 2014. A consequential Order of Penalty dated 02.07.2021, was also passed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Government Pleader Mr.R.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthy appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 4. At the outset, it may be pertinent to state the relevant facts, which are culled out from the record, in brief, for better appreciation of petitioner’s case. 5. Initially, the 1st respondent pursuant to authorization granted by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Ananthapuram Division, conducted VAT Audit of the business transactions of the petitioner. Subsequently, after issuing Show Cause Notice dated 28.08.2015 and Reminder Notice dated 03.11.2015, 1st respondent passed an Assessment Order dated 28.11.2015 determining the tax payable by the petitioner at Rs.8,50,815/-. 1st respondent also passed penalty order on 26.12.2015 for Rs.8,50,815/-. Challenging the Order of Assessment and Penalty Order, the petitioner approached the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupati and filed Appeal Nos.115/2025-16 (ATP) and 50/2016-17 (ATP). The appellate Authority while setting aside the orders of the Assessing Authority, remanded the matter for passing a fresh order, in accordance with Law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. 1st respondent, pursuant to the order of remand by the Appellate Authority, after issuing notices, passed an order of Assessment dated 4 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 04.07.2019 determining the tax payable to the Department at Rs.9,25,804/-. Thereafter, passed an order dated 02.07.2021 imposing penalty of Rs.9,25,804/-. In view of the said orders, the Authority appears to have initiated steps for recovery. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Gunthakal Circle and requested to furnish certified copies of the orders passed against it and the same was rejected by an Endorsement dated 25.11.2021. 7. Seeking to declare the Endorsement dated 25.11.2021 refusing to furnish certified copy of the penalty order dated 02.07.2021, pursuant to the remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Tirupati, W.P.No.30280 of 2021 was filed. A separate W.P.No.30290 of 2021 was filed challenging the Endorsement dated 25.11.2021 refusing to furnish certified copy of the Assessment Order dated 04.07.2019. The respective reliefs prayed for in the said writ petitions for ready reference are extracted hereunder: 1) “………..to grant an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the First Respondent is not justified in issuing the ‘Endorsement dated 25.11.2021, refusing to furnish certified copy of the Ex-parte Penalty Order, dated 02.07.2021, said to have been passed by him pursuant to the Remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, for the Tax Periods March, 2010, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and April to June, 2014, though sought for by the petitioner vide its Letters dated 25.09.2021 and 22.11.2021, when admittedly the original was not received by the petitioner, to enable it to file Statutory Appeals against the same, and consequently direct the First Respondent to furnish either the Order in Original or Certified Copy of the same to the Petitioner.” 2) “………..to grant an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the First Respondent is not justified in issuing the ‘Endorsement dated 25.11.2021, refusing to furnish certified copy of the Ex-parte Assessment Order, dated 04.07.2019, said to have been passed by him pursuant to the Remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, for the Tax Periods March, 2010, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 5 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 April to June, 2014, though sought for by the petitioner vide its Letters dated 25.09.2021 and 22.11.2021, when admittedly the original was not received by the petitioner, to enable it to file Statutory Appeals against the same, and consequently direct the First Respondent to furnish either the Order in Original or Certified Copy of the same to the Petitioner.” 8. Similar contentions as raised in the instant writ petitions was urged before a Division Bench of this Court, more particularly non-receipt of notice sent by the Assessing Authority due to hospitalization of the petitioner, that it resulted in passing of Assessment Order without hearing the petitioner. Further, the Assessment Order after remand was not passed within the time stipulated by the Appellate Authority etc. The learned Division Bench, after considering the matter extensively was not inclined to appreciate the same. In fact, it has recorded its categorical conclusions with reference to service of notices sent to the petitioner before passing the Order of Assessment dated 04.07.2019 and Penalty Order dated 02.07.2021. The relevant paras in this regards reads as follows: “10. But, a perusal of documents evidencing service of notice, would clearly indicate that the notice was sent to the correct address of the petitioner, which fact was not disputed by the petitioner. But, the petitioner only states that his business was discontinued about five years prior to filing of the writ petitions, but there is no material in support of the same. When once a notice is sent to the correct address, the petitioner cannot take the plea that it was not served on him. In terms of the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1977, if a notice is sent to the correct address of the petitioner, it amounts to ‘deemed service’. 11. Infact, Rule 64 (1)(a)(ii) of the A.P.VAT Rules, 2005, clearly postulates that, any notice sent shall be considered as sufficiently served if it is left at the person’s usual or last known place of residence or office or business in the State; or (iii) it is sent by Registered Post to such place of residence, office or business, or to the person’s usual or last known address in the State. 12. From the material available on record, it is clear that it was sent by Registered Post to the last known address and in view of the provisions of the General Clauses Act, coupled with the provisions of A.P.V.A.T. Act & Rules made thereunder, it is to be taken as ‘deemed service’. 6 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 9. Insofar as the contention with regard to passing an Order of Assessment afresh after a period of three (3) months granted by the Appellate Authority, the learned Division Bench at Para No.17 opined as follows: “17. ……….It is true that the order of remand was on 04.08.2016 directing the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if no order is passed within the time prescribed, the petitioner should have approached the Court, seeking a direction to the Assessing Authority to pass orders forthwith. But, the petitioner kept quiet without pursuing the Assessing Authority for passing an order from 2016 to 2018. The petitioner neither made any representation to the Assessing Authority requesting him to pass orders nor filed a writ petition, seeking a direction. But, he is now trying to take advantage of the same by saying that he was under the impression that the matter was closed, as no order was passed within a period of three months, which we are not inclined to accept.” 10. Further, it is crucial to note that the learned Division Bench while obviously not inclined to direct furnishing of order in original or certified copy of the same as prayed for, disposed of the writ petitions vide common order dated 25.08.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “18. It is true that there was a delay in passing of the order, but the facts, in issue, and the plea of the petitioner that he was under the impression that the matter must have been closed, cannot be accepted, more so, when the order of remand categorically states that the petitioner has to submit his documents enabling the Assessing Authority to pass orders, which the petitioner failed to comply. 19. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to give a copy of the order enabling him to file an appeal before the appropriate authority(emphasis supplied). But, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submits that there is no procedure of providing a copy of the order and service of same will be in terms of Rule 64 (1)(a)(ii) of A.P.VAT Rules, which has been complied with. 20. Having regard to the facts in issue and for the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the order to the petitioner, but the date of furnishing a copy of the order, cannot be made the basis to calculate the period of limitation for preferring an appeal (emphasis supplied). There shall be no order as to costs.” 7 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 11. Petitioner, instead of filing the appeals against impugned orders in the light of the Division Bench’s order extracted supra, filed these instant writ petitions. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard sought to impress upon the Court that as the period of limitation for filing the Statutory Appeal under Section 31 of the A.P.V.A.T. Act is only 30 days and Statutory Appellate Authority has no power or authority to condone the delay beyond further 30 days, the present writ petitions have been filed. He also submits that the assessment as well as penalty order were passed on the basis of report of Regional Enforcement Officer without furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner. As such, the same are liable to be set aside. However, from a plain reading above order coupled with relief prayed for in the earlier writ petitions, there can be no iota of doubt that the Division Bench consciously not issued any directions to furnish certified copies or made any observations saving the period of limitation. The plea of non-furnishing of report of Regional Enforcement Officer, was already raised in the earlier writ petitions and not appreciated. Reason for not filing the appeals pursuant to the earlier order dated 25.08.2022 merits no acceptance. It is discernable from the order dated 25.08.2022 that the Division Bench negatived various contentions as raised and considering the request made, directed the respondent-authorities to furnish a copy of the assessment and penalty orders to enable filing of appeals. 8 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 13. Learned Division Bench obviously in view of the conclusions arrived at and as the appeal against order of the Assessing Authority has to be preferred in terms of the time limit prescribed, was not inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for. In such circumstances, petitioner should have worked out the remedies available in Law against the order dated 25.08.2022. However, no such course of action was adopted and instead of availing the opportunity granted at its request for filing appeals, the present writ petitions have been filed. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, any order by entertaining the present writ petitions would not only be contrary to the well considered order dated 25.08.2022 of the Co-ordinate Division Bench which attained finality, but also against judicial discipline. 15. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date: 25.08.2026 BLV Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 9 NJS, J & TCDS, J WPs_32756&32758_2022 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos: 32756 and 32758 of 2022 Dt: 25.08.2026 BLV