1994 (7) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he petitioner under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. The appeals filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were rejected as time-barred. Since the Appellate Tribunal did not find reason to interfere with the common appellate order, these tax revision cases have been filed. 2.. We heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Karunakaran Nam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ority on December 28, 1981 on receipt of the pre-assessment notice categorically asserted that he was only an agriculturist not doing any business and that the brick manufacturing unit was run by his son Pappachan, who was also remitting the tax due. 4.. The assessing authority however completed the assessments as, according to him, enquiries revealed that the petitioner had carried on the brick .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as set forth above, we are of the view that the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to be disposed of on merits instead of being scuttled on the ground of delay. The petitioner appears to be an illiterate person, claiming to be a mere agriculturist. He had clearly stated that the business was not his, but his son's, who was paying the tax therefor. Though the appeals were be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X