Madras High Court
Saravana Traders vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct) on 13 June, 2017
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.10193 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.7826 of 2017
Saravana Traders,
Represented by its Proprietor N.Baskar,
No.19G, South Raja Street,
Tuticorin ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT),
Tirunelveli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II,
Commercial Tax Building,
Tuticorin. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
Na.Ka.No.A1/159/2017, dated 16.03.2017 and to quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and violation of the provisions of Section 51(1) of the TNVAT Act
and further direct the 1st respondent to admit the appeal.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan,
Additional Government Pleader
:ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.A1/159/2017, dated 16.03.2017 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of Section 51(1) of the TNVAT Act, and further to direct the first respondent to admit the appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Admittedly, this Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority, returning the appeal papers presented by the petitioner on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of 60 days. It is not in dispute that under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act'2006, the period of limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days and Section 52 of the said Act, provides firther period of 30 days within which the appeal can be presented , if the delay is explained and condoned.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of assessment passed by the second respondent is dated 20.12.2016, and the same was delivered to the petitioner on 22.12.2016. The respondent admitted in their counter affidavit that the order of second respondent dated 20.12.2016, was served on the petitioner on 22.12.2016. The petitioner has presented the appeal on 20.02.2017. Though the appeal papers were sent on 18.02.2017, the same was delivered to the first respondent office at 2.00 p.m. on 20.02.2017. This is evident from the Track Consignment Sheet issued by the Postal Department. Hence calculating the days between 22.12.2016 and 20.02.2017, it can be seen that the appeal has been presented on the 60th day.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to entertain the appeal and then to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law depending upon the order passed in the petition to condone the delay.
6. With the above direction, the Writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) No.7826 of 2017 is closed. No costs.
To
1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Commercial Tax Building, Tuticorin..