Summary: In the case of M/s Reddy Enterprises v. Appellate Authority & Additional Commissioner (ST), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an appeal filed beyond the condonable period, after a writ petition’s disposal, is not maintainable. The Petitioner had previously approached the High Court, which set aside an order under the CGST Act and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority, imposing a condition of depositing 50% of the tax amount. Following this, the Petitioner filed appeals and Special Leave Petitions, which were ultimately dismissed. The Petitioner later attempted to appeal the order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, bypassing the condition of tax deposit, but this was rejected due to delay. The Court reiterated that a writ petition’s disposal, especially one where directions for compliance were given, limits the opportunity to file an appeal unless specific grounds are met. The Court referred to precedents and upheld the principle that once a writ is entertained and disposed of, subsequent appeals are barred if they violate the conditions set. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the integrity of earlier court decisions and preventing the misuse of legal proceedings.
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of M/s Reddy Enterprises v. Appellate Authority & Additional Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada [Writ Petition No. 12355 of 2024 dated July 05, 2024] held that the appeal filed beyond condonable period after disposal of the writ petition in favour of the Petitioner by granting relief of setting aside of order subject to certain conditions is not maintainable. However, a alternate view has arisen wherein the Hon’ble High Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and stated that “the period from the date of filing of the writ petition and the date on which it was dismissed as not entertained should have been excluded, in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.” as in the said case the writ petition was dismissed on account of availment of alternate remedy of appeal.
Facts:
M/s Reddy Enterprises (“the Petitioner”) against which the Order dated November 10, 2022 (“the Order”) passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”); bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal and filed the writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of M/s Reddy Enterprises v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Writ Petition No. 1433 of 2023 dated March 24, 2023] wherein it was held that the Petitioner must be given opportunity of the personal hearing, thereby the Impugned Order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority for the decision, with the condition that the Petitioner will deposit 50% of the tax component within the 6 weeks.
Thereafter, the Petitioner challenged the judgment dated March 24, 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing the Special Leave to Appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/s Reddy Enterprises v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Special Leave Petition No. 9616 of 2023 dated May 17, 2023] wherein the Court did not interfere with the Judgment dated March 24, 2023. However, all the contentions of the Petitioner were kept open, and the Assessing Officer of the Respondent was directed to deal with the merits of those objections while passing the reasoned orders. The Petitioner filed the [Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2023 in the Writ Petition No. 1433 of 2023 dated March 24, 2023] for modification/ relaxation of the condition of deposit of 50% of the tax component of Rs. 23,79,26,090/-. The Petitioner again approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Reddy Enterprises v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Writ Petition (Civil) No.127 of 2024 dated February 26, 2024] permitted the Petitioner to mention Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2023 in the Writ Petition No. 1433 of 2023 dated March 24, 2023 before the Roster Bench of the High Court.
The Petitioner, instead of applying for clarification, had filed Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2023 for modification/ relaxation of the condition of the deposit imposed in the judgment on March 24, 2023 which clearly states that the Petitioner will deposit 50% of the tax component of Rs. 23,79,26,090 /-. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had permitted Petitioner only to seek clarification for the payment. However, the Roster Bench of the High Court rejected the Petitioner’s Interlocutory Application on February 28, 2024.
The Petitioner challenged the Order dated February 28, 2024 by filing again Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Reddy Enterprises v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Special Leave Petition No. 9869 of 2024 dated May 06, 2024] which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Further, the Petitioner filed the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Authority without fulfilling the condition of depositing fifty percent of the tax demand. However, the said appeal was rejected by passing of the Impugned Order stating that the appeal has to be rejected as the Respondent is not empowered to hear the appeal beyond the condonable period. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court.
The Petitioner argued that, in this regard reliance could be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice mill v. State of A.P. [SLP (C) No. 11225 of 2022, dated November 14, 2022] wherein it was held that the time period consumed during high court proceedings should be excluded for the purpose of limitation as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
In this regard, further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mastek Engineering (P.) Ltd. v. Appellate Authority and Additional Commissioner, State Tax [WP.No.4517 of 2024 dated February 21, 2024], and contended that the Petitioner has filed appeal before the appellate authority belatedly and beyond the condonable period which was dismissed. The writ petition was, however, disposed of by this Court, observing that the appeal is a valuable statutory right, and directing the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal on merits.
Issue:
Whether appeal filed beyond condonable period after disposal of writ proceedings maintainable?
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Writ Petition No. 12355 of 2024 held as under:
- Observed that, the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal does not preclude the consideration of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner had chosen to file a writ petition, and it was accepted by setting aside the Assessment Order, the Petitioner cannot later file an appeal against that order to avoid compliance with the condition of the deposit of the amount in Writ Petition No. 1433 of 2023 vide judgment dated March 24, 2023.
- Noted that, “In Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice mill (supra) the appellant had filed writ petition which was not entertained on the ground that he should approach the appellate authority. Thereafter, when the appellant approached the appellate authority, the appeal was dismissed holding that the delay was beyond condonable period and the High Court had affirmed the said order, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the period from the date of filing of the writ petition and the date on which it was dismissed as not entertained should have been excluded, in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The writ proceedings were maintainable, but not entertained. Thus, there, the writ petition was not entertained. But, here, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was entertained and also disposed of setting aside the order of the assessing authority with directions and imposing the condition on the petitioner to comply, as aforesaid. So, present is not a case of dismissal of the writ petition being not entertained or on the ground of alternative remedy, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority”.
- Relied upon, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi [Special Leave Petition No. 18711 of 1997 dated February 04, 1998] stating that the Court can strike out or amend pleadings deemed ‘an abuse of the process of the Court.’ Further, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18198 of 2018 dated August 17, 2021] wherein held that it is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the Court this may not only abuses the Court’s process but also undermines the administration of justice.
- Opined that, the Petitioner cannot file an appeal and start new litigation on the same issue, allowing this would misuse the Court’s process and disregard the orders of the writ court in Writ Petition No. 1433 of 2023, which the Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld. When the Petitioner chooses not to pursue the statutory appeal and chooses for the writ petition instead, they are bound by its decision. Appeals can only be made if the writ petition is dismissed on the grounds of seeking alternative remedies or if permission to appeal is granted.
- Held that, the writ petition is dismissed.
Relevant Provision:
Section 14 of the Limitation Act:
“Section 14: Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
