2026 (2) TMI 284 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Rejection of belated VAT appeal for delay and failure to notify change of address; petition dismissed

Rejection of a belated VAT appeal rested on delay without satisfactory explanation and defective service. The court found the appellant had not shown ... Rejection of belated appeal for delay without sufficient explanation - claimed excess Input Tax Credit - service by registered post and return endorsement 'no such person at the address' - personal service by departmental officer and non-service where premises locked - duty to inform assessing authority of cessation or change of business address - Compliance with the procedure laid down in Rule 64 of the AP VAT Rules - diligent prosecution before appellate authority as factor against excusing delay - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record it is evident that when initial order of assessment was passed on 30.04.2012, the same was assailed before the 2nd respondent and the same was partly remanded and partly dismissed by order dated 20.06.2012. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that the petitioner was diligently pursuing the matter before the appellate authority. Further, having knowledge of the order passed by the 2nd respondent despite issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner did not choose to appear and participate before the 1st respondent in assessment proceedings. Further, after following the procedure contemplated under AP VAT Act, 2005 and the rules made there under, the 1st respondent passed consequential order dated 31.03.2015. The petitioner failed to mention the mode of service and the address mentioned in the said notice. - Nothing is placed on record to show that the petitioner had informed the same to the 1st respondent. After following the procedure contemplated under Rule 64 of the AP VAT Rules, the assessing authority passed order dated 31.03.2015. On perusal of the record it is clear that, the appeal was filed after a period of 2 years 4 months and 20 days, and the explanation offered by the petitioner cannot be believed. In the absence of the same, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Further, the petitioner having slept over the matter approached the appellate authority without explaining the delay. Apart from the same, as already observed supra the petitioner failed to explain as to how it received the demand notice dated 14.09.2017 from the 1st respondent. It is clear that, the petitioner filed the appeal without properly explaining the delay. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.12.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Issues: Whether the appellate authority rightly rejected admission of the appeal as barred by delay where the assessee failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order.Analysis: The assessment proceedings were earlier challenged and partly remanded, demonstrating the assessee's involvement in appellate process; subsequently a consequential assessment order was passed following the statutory procedure under the VAT regime and AP VAT Rules. The assessing authority and departmental records show service attempts including registered post returned with endorsement and personal service attempts at the business premises. The assessee asserted non-receipt of show-cause notice and assessment order but did not specify mode of service or establish communication of business closure to authorities. The appeal was instituted after 2 years 4 months and 20 days without a credible explanation for the delay; the appellate authority applied the statutory framework governing limitation and condonation and found the delay unexplained.Conclusion: The appellate authority correctly rejected admission of the appeal for want of a satisfactory explanation for the delay; the rejection is upheld in favour of the Revenue.