Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Sub-Section (3) of Section 51 of the Act, or by the Appellate Joint Commissioner under Sub-Section (3) of Section 52 of the Act, or by the Joint Commissioner under Sub- Section (1) of Section 53 of the Act, may appeal against such order to the Appellate Tribunal, within a period of 120 days, in the case of an officer so prescribed by Government. It is to be noted that out of 933 days, the delay of almost 365 days can be attributed to the lockdown imposed by the Government due to the outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic in 2020 with effect from 24.03.2020, leaving 568 days (933 365). A reading of Regulation 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2011 indicates that there is no restriction in time. The second respo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d partly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nethaji Road Assessment Circle, Madurai in TIN/33174981045/2015-16. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein filed the appeal before the second respondent Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) with the delay of 118 days as per Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. It appears that there were certain defects in the appeal field by the first respondent before the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal papers were returned by the Tribunal to the first respondent Joint Commissioner for rectification of the same. After rectification of the defects, the appeal has to be re-submitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the result, this petition is allowed. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay of 933 days, in a casual manner and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference in the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the same Tribunal presided over by the same Additional Departmental Member and the different Additional Judicial Member has dismissed a batch of cases filed by the Commercial Taxes Department by an order dated 03.09.2021, wherein, under similar circumstances in the respective appeals, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the delay was not properly explained by the Commercial Taxes Department. It is submitted that similar order ou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egistration of Appeals. (1) ..... (2) ..... (3) If the Secretary is of the view that the appeal does not conform to the requirements of Act, the rules and these regulations, he shall call upon the party by a notice in Form A in the Appendix to these Regulations, to remedy the defects within a reasonable period to be specified by him and if the defect is remedied within the period allowed, the Secretary shall cause the appeal to be registered: Provided that the Secretary may, for sufficient cause extend the period for remedying the defects. 10. It is the case of the petitioner is that since the appeal was not represented in time and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 933 days in re-presenting the appeal, the applic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd it is not easy to adhere the time lines. 16. That apart, the appeal papers were returned on 10.09.2018, just a few months after the implementation of the GST Acts, w.e.f. 01.07.2017. There were reorganizational issues and a slew of transfers of officers, which would also have caused delay in re-presenting the appeal papers that were returned to cure the defects. 17. Considering the over all facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the view, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. However, I leave it open for the Tribunal to decide whether the first respondent has made out the sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 118 days in filing the appeal. 18. In the res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates