Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari

JUDGMENT

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 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 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 on 24.9.2018 against the assessment order dated 21.6.2017. In the meantime, another assessment order came to be passed on 31.3.2018 in r........