Petitioner denied exclusion of writ proceedings time from limitation period for appeal filing

The AP HC dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings from the limitation period for filing an appeal. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to such exclusion merely because a writ petition was filed, and this was insufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The court found that since the assessment order had already been set aside in previous writ proceedings, filing a fresh appeal against the same order to avoid compliance with the writ court's directions constituted abuse of process. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner's actions amounted to relitigation of the same issue.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of appeal due to delay beyond condonable period.
2. Entitlement for exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings from the period of limitation for filing appeal.
3. Abuse of the process of Court by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Appeal Due to Delay Beyond Condonable Period:
The petitioner, M/s. Reddy Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of their appeal by the Additional Commissioner (ST) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appeal was against an order levying tax, interest, and penalty totaling Rs. 56,95,19,460/-. The appellate authority rejected the appeal as it was filed beyond the condonable period of one month under Section 107(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (APGST Act).

2. Entitlement for Exclusion of Time Taken in Writ Proceedings from the Period of Limitation for Filing Appeal:
The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to availing the writ remedy and subsequent proceedings. They sought exclusion of the period consumed in these proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner cited the case of M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the Supreme Court allowed exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings from the limitation period for filing an appeal.

The Court distinguished the current case from M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill, noting that in the latter, the writ petition was not entertained and the appellant was directed to approach the appellate authority. In contrast, the petitioner's writ petition was entertained and disposed of with specific directions, including a conditional setting aside of the assessment order. Therefore, the principle of exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not apply.

3. Abuse of the Process of Court by the Petitioner:
The Court emphasized that once the petitioner chose to file a writ petition and it was entertained, they could not later file an appeal against the same order to avoid compliance with the writ court's directions. This would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court cited K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi, where relitigation of the same issue, which had already been decided, was deemed an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court, as they were attempting to bypass the writ court's order, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner was not entitled to exclusion of time or condonation of delay based on the filing of the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioner for abusing the process of the Court. The costs were to be paid to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days, failing which the Registrar General was directed to take steps to recover the amount.

---