9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be condoned and the matter should be directed to be heard on merits. In view of the above finding, the impugned order is set aside, the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent stands condoned and the first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and hear the appeal and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. - W.P. (MD) No. 2678 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2009 - SIVAGNANAM T.S., J. ORDER:- T.S. SIVAGNANAM J. The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The second respondent by order dated October 27, 2004 passed a final assessment order for the year 2003-04. According to the petitioner, there are no arrears. It is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there was a delay of 52 days, which is beyond the condonable period of 30 days. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent failed to post the condone delay petition for hearing and failed to give any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated August 1, 2008 requesting for resubmission of the appeal papers. Accordingly, the petitioner re-submitted the appeal papers on September 12, 2008 before the first respondent with a request for permission to peruse the assessment file to ascertain the date of the order. The matter was posted for hearing on November 20, 2008 and the petitioners' counsel appeared before the first respondent on November 20, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Explanation of rule 52(1) of the TNGST Rules, the endorsement by the person, who delivers the notice of having tendered or given it will be proof for the purpose of service of the order. On this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Heard Mr. S. Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The issue which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is regarding the service of the order of assessment on the assessee. This issue has cropped up because the assessee has filed an appeal before the first respondent and the appeal has been rejected by the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice, etc., of having tendered or given it will be proof for the purpose of this sub-rule. A perusal of the Explanation shows that there should be an endorsement by a person, who delivers the notice or order of having tendered or given it and such endorsement will be proof for the purpose of the abovesaid rule. It is to be noted in the present case that there is no such endorsement by person, who delivered the notice. One fact which has to be borne in mind is that the order of assessment was passed on October 27, 2004 and said to have been delivered in the office of the petitioner in their Alancholai estate on the same day and according to the writ petitioner, the distance between the respondent office and the estate office is mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
