A.M. Khanwilkar, J. - (1.) Civil Appeal Nos.7574/2014, 10433/2014, 2084/2015 and Civil Appeal No.5345 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6880 of 2019)1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.6880 of 2019.
(2.) These Civil Appeals emanate from the orders passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal preferred by the concerned appellant(s) under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957 or AP VAT Act, 2005 or Telangana State VAT Act, 2005, as the case may be, on the ground that the appellant-assessee had failed to comply with the pre-condition of producing proof of payment of tax admitted to be due or of such installments as may have been granted and/or the proof of payment of twelve and a half percent (12.5%) of the difference of the tax assessed by the assessing authority and the tax admitted by the appellant for the relevant assessment year in respect of which the appeal has been preferred by the concerned appellant-assessee, warranting rejection of the appeal in terms of the second proviso of Section 19 and proviso of Section 21 (2) of the APGST Act, 1957 or second proviso of Section 31 and proviso of Section 33 (2) of the AP VAT Act, 2005. Similar position obtains regarding the provisions of Telangana State enactments.
(3.) The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the concerned appellant following the decision of the coordinate bench of the High Court in Ankamma Trading Company Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur & Anr., 2011 44 VST 189 (AP) and other decisions taking the same view, despite the appellant pointing out to the High Court that the decision in Ankamma Trading Company (supra) has been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court in M/s. Innovatives Systems, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, ( Civil Appeal No.2230/2015 (arising out of SLP (C) No.1832/2015 decided on February 23, 2015) ). In that case, this Court after clearly noting that the High Court had relied upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the same High Court [in Ankamma Trading Company (supra)] to dismiss the writ petition preferred by the appellant, yet proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the appellant therein by setting aside the decision of the High Court. The appellant in that case had filed appeal within limitation period but deposited the twelve and a half percent (12.5%) of the difference of the tax assessed by the assessing authority in respect of which the appeal was preferred after the expiry of the limitation period specified in the first proviso of the concerned provision. This Court, nevertheless, held that the appellant having deposited the stipulated amount of twelve and a half percent (12.5%) as directed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), the High Court ought to have condoned the delay in complying with the direction given by the Appellate Authority in that regard and thus restored the appeal with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits. Relying on the subsequent decisions of this Court in M/s. IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy Manager (Accounts) Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, (Civil Appeal No.12077/2016 decided on 14.12.2016) and M/s. Ranisati Trading Co. Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Gajuwaka Circle, Visakhapatnam and Ors., (Civil Appeal No.5339/2017 decided on 17.04.2017), it is urged by the appellant-assessee that the High Court ought not to have disregarded those decisions on the specious ground that the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent and purportedly having been passed in exercise of plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as, looking at the decision in M/s. Innovatives Systems (supra) of this Court, there is hardly any doubt that the effect of the said order is to impliedly overrule the principle enunciated by the Division Bench of the High Court in Ankamma Trading Company (supra) or other decisions following the same. For, this Court had unmistakably shown inclination to apply its mind to the merits of the said order before it having granted leave to appeal against the same albeit it had disposed of the matter by a brief judgment. Thus, additionally, the doctrine of merger would come into play as exposited in Kunhayammed and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., 2000 6 SCC 359, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court opined that once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open and any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. Further, it would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal, or of affirming the order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a speaking or a non-speaking one.;