2014 (4) TMI 1043 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - penalty under section 27(3) and (4) of the TNVAT Act - impugned orders were not served directly on the petitioner - Held that - Irrespective of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the petitioner may be permitted to file appeal along with applications to condone the delay in filing the appeal. - The petitioner is directed to file appeals against the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by depositing 50 per cent. of the tax amount payable, if the tax amount is not yet paid, within a period of two weeks from the data of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the second respondent is directed to entertain the appeals along with applications to condone the delay and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petition for mandamus to entertain appeal against assessment orders without rejection on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, filed monthly returns and underwent revision of assessments for multiple years. The first respondent revised the assessments based on an inspection report, levying purchase tax on old jewels and penalties. The impugned orders were received by individuals not authorized to represent the petitioner, leading to rejection of rectification applications. The petitioner sought to file appeals against the orders, citing Rule 19(1)(b) of TNVAT Rules and a prior court judgment in a similar case.

The petitioner argued that the orders were not served on authorized representatives, and rectification applications were wrongly rejected. The petitioner relied on a previous court judgment directing appeal filing without rejection on limitation grounds. The respondents opposed the prayer, citing rejected rectification applications as a bar to entertaining appeals.

The court, considering the interest of justice, allowed the petitioner to file appeals against assessment orders by depositing 50% of the tax amount within two weeks. The second respondent was directed to entertain the appeals and decide on merits without limitation rejection. The court clarified that its order did not express any opinion on the case's merits, allowing the petitioner to raise legal grounds.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with directions for appeal filing and consideration without costs. The court's decision aimed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to address the assessment issues through the appeal process, ensuring justice and procedural fairness.