MAHESWARI FIREWORKS INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Mr. K. Ravirajapandian, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard both sides. By the present petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation special Tribunal, passed on April 29, 1999 dismissing the petitioner's O. P. No. 547 of 1999. The aforesaid O. P. has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal of the petitioner against the revised assessment order was time-barred. In support of his prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner has averred as under : "i submit that the order was served on the accountant of the petitioner on June 27, 1996 both since myself and the other partners are out of station at that time. The accountant who received the order did not bring it to my attention on my return from out station. He simply kept it in the sales tax file and did not inform me about the receipt of it. Only on February 20, 1997 when the first respondent called upon me to pay the amounts due as per the impugned order. I came to know about the impugned order. Immediately I made arrangements for filing an appeal against the said order. The appeal was filed on February 24, 1997 before the second respondent by which time there was a delay of 212 days. The petitioner also filed an application before the second respondent to condone the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal. 7. I submit that the appeal filed before the Appellate assistant Commissioner (C. T.), Virudhunagar, with a delay of 212 days was not at all admitted and the petition to condone the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal in M. P. No. 61 of 1997 was dismissed on July 29, 1998 on the ground that the reason stated for the delay is not convincing. In August, 1998 onwards I had a mild stroke and was advised bed rest for six months. Hence I could not take immediate steps to proceed further in the matter". We have considered the grounds set up for condonation of delay. It is true that as far as the Appellate Authority is concerned, its jurisdiction and power to condone the delay is limited to a period of 30 days. That limitation, however, cannot be made applicable to this Court while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we find that a case is made out for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The delay in preferring the appeal is accordingly condoned. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar, viz. , the second respondent herein will now consider the appeal of the petitioner on the merits and in accordance with law. The present writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid circumstances. The petitioner is granted two weeks time to re-submit his appeal if the same becomes necessary. Petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 1, 000 to the respondents towards costs to the counsel for the respondent herein as a condition precedent. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 12281 of 1999 is closed as no order is necessary. Writ petition allowed. .