Lakshmi Ganesha Granites vs State Of AP And Others

R. Raghunandan Rao, J

As the issues raised and the grounds of challenge to the impugned orders in these writ petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

Heard Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

In both the cases, the petitioners are proprietary concerns, which are carrying on the business of granite cutting and polishing and sale of such finished granite products. The establishments of both the petitioners were inspected in the year 2015 by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Anantapur, as part of a general drive carried out against 77 such units in Tadipatri area.

The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, after inspection of the premises, had come to the conclusion that there is a variation of 317.64 Cubic meters of granite in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1669 of 2025 and 73.250 Cubic meters of granite in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1666 of 2025. These conclusions were forwarded to the Commercial Tax Officer, Tadipatri, for taking necessary action for collection of tax. The petitioners, in both the writ petitions, have approached the 3rd respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Tadipatri, contending that the said calculation was unsustainable and no tax was liable to be paid. The Commercial Tax Officer, Tadipatri, by proceedings, dated 16.08.2019, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1669 of 2025 had assessed the tax due from the petitioner at Rs.8,29,027/-. Similarly, the Commercial Tax Officer, Tadipatri by proceedings, dated 19.08.2019, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1666 of 2025, had passed an assessment order raising a demand of Rs.1,91,183/-as the tax payable.

Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner in W.P.No.1669 of 2025 and the petitioner in W.P.No.1666 of 2025 have filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Tirupati. Both these appeals were dismissed by separate orders, dated 09.02.2021, on the ground that the said appeals are beyond the period of limitation permissible under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the VAT Act’).

Thereafter, both the petitioners remained silent until separate demand notices, dated 31.12.2024 and 02.01.2025, were served on the petitioners, seeking payment of tax.

The demand notice, dated 31.12.2024, in relation to the petitioner in W.P.No.1669 of 2025, sought payment of Rs.15,24,424/- in relation to the balance tax payable for the period 04/2015 to 03/2016. This amount is split into two parts i.e., Rs.7,25,397/- and Rs.7,99,027/-. Similarly, the demand notice dated 02.01.2025, in relation to the petitioner in W.P.No.1666 of 2025, sought payment of Rs.1,67,283/- and Rs.1,91,183/-, aggregating to Rs.3,58,466/-, for the period 04/2015 to 03/2016.

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders of assessment dated 16.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 and appellate orders, dated 09.02.2021, in W.P.No.1669 of 2025 and in W.P.No.1666 of 2025 respectively.

Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the orders of assessment, dated 16.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 were done in an arbitrary manner and without taking into account the objections raised by the petitioners. Further, appeals could not be moved on account of the outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and the 2nd respondent, without considering the reasons for delay in filing the appeals, has dismissed the appeals on an irrelevant ground.

Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioners would also contend that the figures set out in the orders of assessment and the demand set out in the demand notices, issued on 31.12.2024 and 02.01.2025, have no connection whatsoever. He would submit that it is not clear as to how two separate amounts can be claimed, under the VAT Act, for the same period of assessment.

The orders of assessment passed by the Commercial Tax Officer state that the petitioners had not produced any material before the Commercial Tax Officer to demonstrate that there was no variation in the quantity of granite quarried and the quantity of granite sold by the petitioners. On that basis, the Assessing Officer had passed the orders of assessment. The petitioners do not choose to file any appeals, against the said orders of assessment, within the period of limitation stipulated under the provisions of the VAT Act. The appeals were filed, with an inordinate delay, and beyond the period of time, which could be condoned by the appellate authority. The contention that the appeals could not be filed on account of the outbreak of Covid-19 and that the benefit of extension of limitation given in relation to this period would have to be given to the petitioners, cannot be accepted. The orders of assessment were passed on 16.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 and served on the petitioners. The maximum period within which the appeals could have been filed and the further period, which can be condoned by the Appellate Authority, had expired even before the Covid outbreak in March 2020. As such, the order of the Appellate Authority also cannot be faulted.

Further, the petitioners, who were aware of the order of dismissal of the appeals, dated 09.02.2021, have chosen to remain silent for the next four years and approached this Court only after the notices of demand, have been served on them. The explanation given for such delay cannot be accepted.

In such circumstances, the writ petitions are clearly barred on account of laches. Apart from that, no cogent reasons are set out for challenging the orders of assessment or the orders of appeal.

However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the demands raised in the demand notices, dated 31.12.2024 and 02.01.2025, do not have any basis for the assessment years, is an issue which can be raised by the petitioners before the Assessing Officer himself.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to seek details of the amounts being claimed under the demand notices and the respondent authorities are bound to give such details demonstrating the basis for such claims. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.