1993 (7) TMI 324 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, apathy of authorities, administrative transfer of proceedings, direction to hear appeal and condonation petition together.

1. Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay:
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal with a condone delay petition before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition for condonation of delay as the delay exceeded six years, which was beyond the 30-day limit empowered to him under section 31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court noted the long delay in filing the appeal and the failure to adhere to the statutory time limit, leading to the rejection of the condonation petition and the return of the appeal petition to the appellants.

2. Apathy of authorities:
The case history revealed a pattern of apathy by the authorities towards the petitioner. The petitioner faced a tax demand based on a best judgment assessment, with his representations and objections being ignored. Orders were passed without proper service of notice, leading to the petitioner being dragged into litigation. Despite court directions to prefer an appeal and raise contentions, the appeal was not entertained, indicating a lack of responsiveness by the authorities towards the petitioner's grievances.

3. Administrative transfer of proceedings:
The court expressed concerns about the conduct of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, noting either carelessness or deliberate ignorance of legal provisions. Given the reluctance and delays in hearing the matter on merits, the court directed the administrative transfer of the proceedings from the current officer to another competent authority. This transfer aimed to ensure a fair hearing for the petitioner and rectify any mistakes in the assessment process.

4. Direction to hear appeal and condonation petition together:
After considering the facts and the conduct of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the court directed the authorities to hear both the condonation delay petition and the appeal together. This approach aimed to address any errors in tax assessment or penalties, as well as any unjustified objections raised by the petitioner. By passing a composite order, the competent authority could rectify mistakes and ensure a just resolution for all parties involved.

In conclusion, the court ordered the respondents to disregard the previous order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and directed them to consider the appeal and condonation petition together, subject to administrative transfer if necessary. The writ petition was granted without costs, with a copy of the order to be forwarded to the concerned department for appropriate action against the second respondent.