Plea of Non-Service Cannot Override Statutory Limitation When Dealer Sleeps Over Rights: Andhra Pradesh High Court Writ Against VAT Appellate Rejection

“Explanation Offered by Petitioner Cannot Be Believed – Delay of 2 Years 4 Months in Filing Appeal is Fatal,” Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Oil and Food Products, challenging the refusal of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to entertain an appeal filed with an unexplained delay of more than two years under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

The Court held that the explanation for delay was unconvincing and amounted to a mere afterthought, especially in the face of evidence showing proper dispatch and attempted service of the assessment order. The judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 in fiscal matters and stresses that litigants cannot seek indulgence in equity when statutory remedies are abandoned through inaction.

Dealer’s Inaction After Remand Order Led to Revival of Huge Tax Demand

The petitioner, a registered VAT dealer involved in the trade of edible oils, pulses and paddy, was subjected to assessment proceedings for the tax periods 2010-11 and 2011-12. The initial assessment order dated 30.04.2012, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), Nandigama Circle, demanded a sum of Rs. 2.07 crores, citing excessive Input Tax Credit claims and under-declared turnover.

This order was challenged before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who, by order dated 20.06.2012, partly allowed and partly remanded the matter, directing the CTO to obtain confirmation from sellers regarding disclosed turnover. The consequence of this remand, however, was the passing of a fresh assessment order on 31.03.2015, culminating in an even higher demand of Rs. 3.89 crores.

The dealer, however, did not respond to this development for over two years. Only upon receiving a demand notice dated 14.09.2017, did the petitioner file an appeal on 15.11.2017, claiming to have been unaware of the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 due to non-service of the show cause notice.

“Rule 64 Was Duly Complied With”: Court Rejects Plea of Non-Service as Mere Afterthought

The petitioner’s primary claim rested on lack of service of the show cause notice dated 12.12.2014 and the subsequent assessment order dated 31.03.2015. However, the respondents produced evidence that service was attempted both by registered post and by deputing staff, but failed due to the premises being locked and marked as having 'no such assessee'.

The Bench held:

“After following the procedure contemplated under Rule 64 of the AP VAT Rules, the assessing authority passed order dated 31.03.2015... the explanation offered by the petitioner cannot be believed.”

It emphasized that if the petitioner had ceased operations or shifted business, it was legally bound to inform the department. The failure to do so made the presumption of valid service under law fully applicable, particularly when the department had made multiple attempts to deliver notices.

“Diligence Shown in 2012, Abandoned After 2015”: Court Finds Delay Unexplained and Unjustified

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had earlier pursued appellate remedies diligently in 2012. However, following the remand, it entirely failed to participate in the consequential proceedings, neither appearing before the assessing officer nor updating its contact information.

The key turning point in the reasoning came when the Court highlighted that:

“The petitioner having slept over the matter approached the appellate authority without explaining the delay... From the above it is clear that, the petitioner filed the appeal without properly explaining the delay.”

This, the Court ruled, was fatal to the case. The unexplained gap of 2 years, 4 months, and 20 days between the assessment and appeal could not be condoned either by the appellate authority or by exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Natural Justice Not Violated When Dealer Avoids Proceedings By Its Own Conduct

The petitioner also sought to raise the principle of natural justice, claiming that no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the assessment. But the Court was categorical in rejecting this line:

“Non-participation by assessee attributable to its own conduct – No violation of principles of natural justice established.”

Thus, where the statutory procedure was followed, and the assessee’s own conduct led to non-service, the principles of natural justice could not be weaponized to reopen long-concluded proceedings.

Judicial Review Under Article 226 Not Meant to Cure Self-Inflicted Wrongs

In its concluding remarks, the Bench underscored the strict limitations on judicial review in tax matters, especially where no jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity in the appellate order was demonstrated:

“This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order... Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the writ petition.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no costs, and all interlocutory applications were closed.

Equity Does Not Rescue Those Who Abandon Statutory Remedies

This judgment reiterates a crucial principle in tax adjudication: Statutory timelines are not empty formalities. A party seeking to challenge assessments must act with vigilance and cannot turn to constitutional courts when their own omissions create the very grounds of prejudice.

In the absence of cogent proof of procedural violation or jurisdictional error, Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass legislatively fixed limitations. Dealers are duty-bound to update their contact details, monitor departmental notices, and follow through with litigation – or else, face the consequences of delay.

Date of Decision: 04.02.2026