news round up - Taxmann

2010] Maruthi Estate v. Appellate Dy. CCT (Mad.)
237
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Under normal circumstances, the instant court would have remanded the
matter for fresh consideration to the first respondent for the purpose of
seeing whether sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of
delay. However, in the instant case, it was to be noted that the appeal papers
were pending before the first respondent for more than 3½ years after a
number was assigned and then the papers were returned on the ground
that there was delay of 52 days. The said appeal papers had been once again
represented and thereafter, the impugned order had been passed. [Para 11]
In such circumstances, it was to be held that it was a fit case where the delay
had to be condoned and the matter was to be directed to be heard on merits.
In view of the above finding, the impugned order was to be set aside, the
delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent stood condoned and
the first respondent was to be directed to issue notice to the assessee and
hear the appeal and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.
[Para 12]
S. Karunakar for the Petitioner. Pala Ramasamy for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is an assessee under the provision of the Tamil
Nadu General Sales-tax Rules. The second respondent by order dated
27-10-2004 passed a final assessment order for the year 2003-04.
2. According to the petitioner, there is no arrears. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of assessment dated
27-10-2004 has been served on the petitioner only on 18-11-2004 at their
estate office at Alancholai. The limitation for filing an appeal in terms of
section 31 of the Act is 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner is empowered to admit an
appeal filed beyond the period of 30 days, up to maximum further period
of 30 days, if the appellant shows sufficient cause for not filing the appeal
within the said period of 30 days. According to the petitioner, they filed an
appeal petition on 17-1-2005 disputing the tax liability. Since there was a
delay of 27 days in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of
delay was filed. The application for condonation of delay was numbered,
but no notice of hearing was received and final hearing was fixed on
8-2-2008 fixing the date of hearing is 25-2-2008. The petitioner appeared
for hearing but the matter was not taken up and the appeal petition was
kept pending before the first respondent for more than 3½ years after
assigning M.P. No. 2 of 2005, as the number for the condone delay petition.
Thereafter, by order dated 19-6-2008, the appeal papers were returned as
rejected stating that on perusal of assessment records, it was seen that the
order passed by the second respondent dated 27-10-2004 was served on
the same date on the petitioner and hence, there was a delay of 52 days,
which is beyond the condonable period of 30 days.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent failed to
post the condone delay petition for hearing and failed to give any oppor-
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 113