9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal under s. 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Dispute over time-barred appeal. Analysis: The appellant, a private limited company dealing in leather goods, contested the order of the AAC dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The AO disallowed the claim for exemption on a turnover of Rs. 6,57,006.10 due to the appellant not producing accounts. The assessing authority passed the order on the same day without considering the appellant's request for adjournment, leading to the appellant moving for cancellation of the assessment under s. 14 of the Act. The assessing authority agreed to reopen the assessment upon the appellant's request. However, the AAC declined to condone the delay of 816 days, stating lack of evidence of the appellant's application for reopening the assessment under s. 14. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned due to the assessing authority's written orders granting reopening. The appellant maintained that it believed there was an alternative remedy under s. 14, justifying the delay. The Tribunal found the assessing authority's order invalid for not considering the request for adjournment and passing the order on the date of hearing. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and AAC's decision, allowing the appeal and ordering a redo of the assessment in accordance with the law. The Tribunal noted that the appellant, engaged in export business in leather, faced suspension due to lack of orders and improper communication of notices. The ex-parte order was passed without considering the appellant's request for adjournment, which was based on the ongoing audit of accounts. The assessing authority's failure to address the adjournment request rendered the assessment order invalid, as it lacked an opportunity for the appellant. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's claim of applying for reopening under s. 14 and the subsequent agreement by the assessing authority to reopen the assessment. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the appellant's belief in an alternative remedy under s. 14, justifying the delay of 816 days. The Tribunal emphasized the assessing authority's initial agreement to reopen the assessment, supporting the appellant's contention of a valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal referenced previous case law to support the appellant's pursuit of an alternative remedy as constituting sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the assessment for a redo in compliance with the law. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's pursuit of an alternative remedy under s. 14, based on a belief in sufficient cause for the delay, justified the appeal not being time-barred. The Tribunal found the assessing authority's failure to consider the adjournment request and passing the order on the hearing date as grounds for setting aside the assessment and AAC's decision. The Tribunal ordered a redo of the assessment in line with the law, acknowledging the appellant's actions as bona fide and justifying the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's position that the assessing authority's initial agreement to reopen the assessment supported the appellant's belief in an alternative remedy under s. 14, warranting the appeal's allowance and setting aside of the assessment for a fresh assessment process.
|
