LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-205

C PERIASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY SECRETARY, DEPT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI

Decided On September 18, 2017
C Periasamy Appellant
V/S
State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By Secretary, Dept Of Commercial Taxes And Religious Endowments, Fort St George, Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, a civil work contractor, who would have now crossed 82 years of age, is before this Court having missed the bus in not duly and diligently contesting the assessment proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short "TNGST Act").

(3.) The petitioner having been left with no other remedy since the appeal petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected as time-barred, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition when recovery notice dated 17.11.2006 was issued proposing to initiate action to recover the total tax amount of Rs.4,83,434/- for all the three assessment years (1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98) surcharge of Rs.60,990/- and penalty of Rs.3,99,868/- and in all Rs.9,44,272/-. The petitioner after receiving the notice issued by the assessing officer, appears to have engaged the service of the sales tax practioner for attending the hearing. However, the petitioner thought it would be sufficient for him to hand over the papers to the sales tax practioner and whenver asked for, he could go and meet the practioner and give appropriate instruction on facts. The petitioner pleads that he had suffered serious heart ailment and could not follow up the matter and only much after the assessment orders were passed, the petitioner took steps for engaging the service of a Chartered Accountant and filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem. The appeal petition was apparently time barred, as, there was delay of 752 days. The appellate authority had no power to condone such delay. Therefore, dismissed the appeal for condonation of delay by order dated 02.05.2006. In this scenario, the petitioner is before this Court.