STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. TVL MEDI HERBS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 90 days in preferring the tax case revision as against the order of the Tribunal. This Court, vide order dated 22.03.2011, issued fresh notice on the respondent. Mr. R. Senniappan, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent, and vehemently opposed the petition stating that the appeal should be filed within 90 days from the date on which a copy of the order is served on the party and the Court may, within a further period of 90 days, admit a petition preferred after the expiration of the first mentioned period of 90 days. However, the present petition has been filed well beyond the further 90 days period and, therefore, in view of proviso to Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the said petition cannot be entertained. On the above-said plea, the present petition is objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent. In support of his objection to entertain the petition, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.K. Herbals (P) Ltd. & Ors., 2004 136 STC 632 .

(2.) Heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record as also the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) In R.K. Herbal's case , a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the computation of limitation period for the purpose of filing the appeal. In the said decision, this Court has held that notices on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu are received through its State representative. Such being the position, the service effected on the said representative is the service on the respondent. For better clarity, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder :-