9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant and since the petitioner has not paid the same within a period of 30 days and also withina a further period of 30 days, rejected the appeals as not maintainable. - appellate authority did not dispute the veracity of the statement of the petitioner nor it was its case that the petitioner filed the appeals belatedly for certain malafide reason with a deliberate intention to delay the matters. The appellate authority also did not record such a finding. - Delay condoned. - W.P.Nos.30914 to 30918 of 2015, M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Appellant : Mr R Senniappan For the Respondents : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, AGP(T) ORDER Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of the petitioner on 10.12.2013, 11.12.2013 and 12.12.2013, stating that there was a difference in turnover between monthly return in Form I and the value mentioned in the purchase statement and therefore, added equal time for probable omission to the book turnover with gross profit and freight as a result, a huge amount of tax including penalty levied against the petitioner under Section 27(3)(c) of the Act. 3.2 According to the petitioner, as against the said orders of the 2nd respondent dated 30.09.2014, the petitioner preferred appeals before the 1st respondent by paying 25% of the disputed tax, however with a delay of 233 days and it is the case of the petitioner that the appeals were filed only after recovery of illness suffered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay has to be condoned and the matters are to be heard by the appellate authority on merits. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that since the appeals were filed beyond the limitation period, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeals. 6. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner filed appeals belatedly beyond the period of 60 days (30+30). As per Section 51(1) of the TNVAT Act, any person objecting to an order passed by the assessing authority within a period of 30 days fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and having been satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and in the interest of justice, is of the view that the delay should be condoned and the matters are to be heard by the appellate authority on merits. 9. In view of the above, by condoning the delay, this Court permits the petitioner to re-present the appeals before the appellate authority by complying with all the mandatory requirements within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such re-presentation, the appellate authority is directed to entertain the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
