ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU KAKINADA vs M/S GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED. Supreme Court, 06-05-2020
| Judge | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT |
| Parties | ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU KAKINADAM/S GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED |
| Date | 06 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-002413-002413 / 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2413/2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12892/2019)
Assistant Commissioner (CT)
LTU, Kakinada & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer
Health Care Limited ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the
judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No.
39418/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought
to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole
1 For short, “the High Court”
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2020.05.06
16:03:16 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order
stood foreclosed by the law of limitation?
3. The respondent is a registered dealer on the rolls of
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Large Tax Payer
Unit at Kakinada Division2 under the provisions of Andhra
Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 20053 and the Central Sales Tax
Act, 19564 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and
sale of Horlicks, Boost, Biscuits, Ghee, Ayurvedic Medicines etc.
The Assistant Commissioner had called upon the respondent to
produce books of accounts for the assessment year 2013-14 for
finalisation of assessment under the 1956 Act. The authorised
representative of the respondent produced declaration in Form
“F” in support of its claim that certain transactions are inter-
State transfers. The information and declaration furnished by
the respondent was duly verified and after giving personal
hearing to the respondent, final assessment order came to be
passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 21.6.2017, raising
demand of Rs.76,73,197/- (Rupees seventy six lakhs seventy
three thousand one hundred ninety seven only) against turnover
2 For short, “the Assistant Commissioner”
3 For short, ”the 2005 Act”
4 For short, “the 1956 Act”
3
of Rs.3,44,15,240/- (Rupees three crores forty four lakhs fifteen
thousand two hundred forty only) on the finding that the
respondent had failed to submit Form “F” to the tune of the
turnover reported in the Central Sales Tax (CST) return. This
assessment order was duly served on the respondent on
22.6.2017. The respondent did not file appeal against this
assessment order within the statutory period. Instead, amount
equivalent to 12.5% of the demand was deposited on 12.9.2017.
The respondent then filed an application under Rule 60 of the
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 20055, highlighting the
error made in raising the demand based on incorrect turnover
reported by the respondent. This application was filed only on
8.5.2018, which came to be rejected by the Assistant
Commissioner vide order dated 11.5.2018. Aggrieved by the
decision dated 11.5.2018, the respondent filed an appeal before
the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Vijayawada6 on 28.5.2018, which came to be rejected on
17.8.2018. It is only thereafter, the respondent-assessee was
advised to file appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner
5 For short, “the 2005 Rules”
6 For short, “the Appellate Deputy Commissioner” or “the appellate authority”, as the
case may be”
To continue reading
Request your trial