JUDGMENT : (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) 1. Heard Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C.D. Sekhar, learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order, dated 26.11.2021, passed by the respondent no.1 by which the claim for exemption being charged under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with regard to the goods replaced being covered under warranty of the product sold by the petitioner has been rejected for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially also an Assessment Order was passed levying tax on such product, but in appeal, by order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, in ADC Order No.3549/11-09-2018, the Assessment Order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent no.1 with a direction to examine the issue after verifying the relevant records. Learned counsel submitted that on such remand, pursuant to the notice issued by the authority, the petitioner had produced all the relevant records, but still the order impugned has been passed which is against the law. It was submitted that the goods on which the authorities have proposed tax are exempted for the reason that no sale of such goods has taken place and the same has been given to the customer by way of replacement being covered under warranty. Learned counsel submitted that all the details which are required to be furnished to justify the claim for such exemption, were before the authorities, but ignoring the same, the order impugned has been passed. Learned counsel further contended that even otherwise, the order remanding the matter to the respondent no.1 was passed on 10.09.2018, which required the respondent no.1 to pass order latest by 26.10.2021. But the same has been passed on 26.11.2021, which is beyond the period prescribed under the statute and thus, on this ground alone, the order impugned requires to be set aside. 4. It was further submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the limitation being extended during the Covid-19 period would not cover the present case where the respondent no.1 was required to pass an order pursuant to the matter being remanded to him by the Appellate Authority. 5. 4. It was further submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the limitation being extended during the Covid-19 period would not cover the present case where the respondent no.1 was required to pass an order pursuant to the matter being remanded to him by the Appellate Authority. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are erroneous for the reason that once the matter has been remanded, the Assessing Authority has got independent and original powers under the statute and the same authorizes him to pass an order within three (3) years as per Section 37 of the Act. Thus, once the statute prescribed the limitation period, the Assessment Order being passed in a proceeding, the same is covered under the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this connection, attention of the Court was drawn to the Order, dated 23.09.2021, which clearly states that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Thus, it was contended that in view thereof, the authority has passed the order impugned well within time. Coming to the merits of the matter, learned counsel submitted that the authority has clearly noted in the order impugned that there was a missing link about replacement of defective product by the manufacturer at other State in respect of goods in question as there was no information about the transportation of the defective goods received from the customers to the manufacturer of other state and Andhra Pradesh and the information pertaining to replacement of new spare parts or new goods in place of defective spare parts or new goods by the manufacturer with relevant documentary evidence. Further, learned counsel submitted that the order impugned also notes that the information on replacement of goods covered by warranty, the goods were replaced by the dealer by issuing stock replacement note to the other registered dealers in Andhra Pradesh, but no customer’s name was mentioned in the stock replacement note. Further, learned counsel submitted that the order impugned also notes that the information on replacement of goods covered by warranty, the goods were replaced by the dealer by issuing stock replacement note to the other registered dealers in Andhra Pradesh, but no customer’s name was mentioned in the stock replacement note. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the authority has rightly come to the conclusion that such goods were covered by sale as there was no evidence or reliable material to correlate the replacement of new spare parts or new goods by the manufacturer to items covered under warranty. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submitted that such observations are incorrect as all such details have been furnished by him before the authority concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that such plea has not been taken in the affidavit in the present case and most importantly, the matter relates to appreciation of evidence, which is voluminous, and the same has to be corroborated by taking evidence, which the Court would not go into it in the present proceeding. It was further submitted that in the order itself, it has been indicated that there was a statutory forum of appeal to the Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the order. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. As far as the issue of legality of the order on the ground of limitation is concerned, we agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the present proceeding, being a statutory proceeding, is covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 23.09.2021, which covers the limitation in the present case also and as it is a proceeding under Section 37 of the Act, a period of three (3) years has been prescribed from the date of receipt of the order, which in the present case is 26.10.2018. 9. Coming to the merits of the matter, the Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter has to be appreciated only after going through the records and other material documents and evidence, which may have been produced by the petitioner or may be in his possession. 9. Coming to the merits of the matter, the Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter has to be appreciated only after going through the records and other material documents and evidence, which may have been produced by the petitioner or may be in his possession. Thus, the Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, is the forum before which the petitioner is required to agitate the matter by producing all documentary evidence available with him in support of his contention. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to avail the remedy of appeal, as indicated in the order impugned, before the Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, as time for filing such appeal is still available. 11. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty aforesaid. It is indicated that the Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter on facts. Let the Registry return the original certified copy of the order impugned, after retaining a legible attested Photostat copy of the order, which shall be kept on record. No order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, also stand disposed of.