1984 (7) TMI 15 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the delay in filing appeals by the respondents-assessees can be condoned based on the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment.
2. Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in filing appeals.
3. Remedies available to the Department and the assessees in cases of mutual mistake of law regarding tax liability.

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in Filing Appeals
The respondents-assessees, dealers in puffed and parched rice, were assessed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, with a tax at 4% u/s 5(1). They did not appeal within the prescribed period. After the Supreme Court's judgment in Alladi Venkateswarulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (February 21, 1978), they filed appeals accompanied by petitions for condoning the delay. The Assistant Commissioner refused to condone the delay, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned it, citing sufficient cause due to the Supreme Court's judgment.

Issue 2: Sufficient Cause for Condoning Delay
The Tribunal held that the respondents were justified in not filing appeals immediately after receiving the assessment orders due to the High Court's judgment dated August 24, 1976, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal followed previous decisions in T.R.C. No. 1 of 1967 and T.R.C. Nos. 1 to 6 of 1968. The High Court examined whether the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The court noted that the respondents did not raise any objections before the assessing authority and accepted the assessments.

Issue 3: Remedies for Mutual Mistake of Law
The court discussed the remedies available to both the Department and the assessees in cases of mutual mistake of law. For the Department, remedies include reopening assessments u/s 14(4) within four years, revision by the Commissioner u/s 20, and deferring assessments u/s 14(5) and (6). For assessees, remedies include filing a suit or writ petition for refund within three years of discovering the mistake, or filing an appeal or revision with a petition for condoning the delay.

Judgment:
- T.R.C. Nos. 85 and 105 of 1982: The court held that the Supreme Court's judgment constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay was upheld.
- T.R.C. Nos. 87, 106, 108, and 109 of 1982: The court found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay as the High Court's judgment was not rendered by the date of receipt of the assessment orders. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay was overturned.

The court dismissed T.R.C. Nos. 85 and 105 of 1982 and allowed T.R.C. Nos. 87, 106, 108, and 109 of 1982. The request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected.