9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner only on November 18, 2004 at their estate office at Alancholai. The limitation for filing an appeal in terms of section 31 of the Act is 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner is empowered to admit an appeal filed beyond the period of 30 days, up to maximum further period of 30 days, if the appellant shows sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period of 30 days. According to the petitioner, they filed an appeal petition on January 17, 2005 disputing the tax liability. Since there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The application for condonation of delay was numbered, but no notice of hearing was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of the order of assessment. Accordingly, a written submission was also made on November 25, 2008. However, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated November 25, 2008 stating that the appeal submitted on January 17, 2005 is after the expiration of 30 days and the appeal petition cannot be entertained. Assailing the correctness of this order, the above writ petition has been filed on the ground that the order of assessment was served only on November 18, 2004 at the estate office at Alancholai, which above 25 kms away from the office of the second respondent. Therefore, it was contended that the rejection on the ground of delay of 52 days is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that on perusal of the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin 30 days and further 30 days time is granted to present the appeal and the appellate authority can entertain such appeal, if he is satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Therefore, what is required to be seen is whether there has been proper service of the order of assessment on the petitioner. The files relating to the assessment were produced in court. It is to be noted that in the acknowledgment, there is a signature with date October 27, 2004. The name of the person or the designation is not found and there is no seal of the petitioner-company. On this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that they have not been served with the order. However, this issue is not a dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that there is no proper service of the order of assessment on the petitionerCompany in terms of rule 52(1) of the TNGST Rules. In that view, it has to be taken that the order of assessment was served on the petitionercompany only on November 18, 2004. In such circumstances, the impugned order has to be held as bad in law and is accordingly set aside. Under normal circumstances, this court would remand the matter for fresh consideration of the first respondent for the purpose of seeing whether sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. However, in the instant case, it is to be noted that the appeal papers itself were pending before the first respondent for more than 3½ years after a number was assigned to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
