N SHANMUGASUNDARAM Vs. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Petitions Nos. 104 of 1999 and 105 of 1999 are filed to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal (AB), Coimbatore, passed in C.T.M.P. No. 121 of 1996 for restoration of C.T.M.P. Nos. 142 of 1995 and 143 of 1995. Original Petition No. 1754 of 1998 is to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal passed under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, dated June 15, 1998 dismissing the petition. All these matters relate to the dismissal of the appeals and also the subsequent petitions for the restoration of the appeals. For better understanding, it is proper to refer to the relevant facts.

(2.) AGAINST the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner herein filed appeals in C.T.A. Nos. 551 of 1992 and 553 of 1992 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Coimbatore, along with some other appeals. These two appeals were dismissed for default on April 20, 1995. Later on, the appellant filed applications - -C.T.M.P. Nos. 142 of 1995 and 143 of 1995 under Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations for restoration of appeals ; petition also were dismissed for default on July 25, 1996 to restore these petitions, again C.T.M.P. No. 121 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner and was rejected and these are orders against which O.P. Nos. 104 of 1999 and 105 of 1999 are filed. Again, the petitioner filed petition under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to rectify the orders passed in C.T.M.P. No. 121 of 1996, that also was dismissed on June 15, 1998. Therefore, as against that order O.P. No. 1754 of 1998 is filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner - -Thiru Senniappan cited certain other decisions - -[1993] 88 STC 17 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Saganla) and ) which relate to the condonation of long delay in filing the petitions. In [1993] 88 STC 17 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Saganla) there was a delay of 7 years and 158 days in filing the review application and the Tribunal condoned the delay. It was held that, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which is applicable for condonation of delay, the Tribunal had powers to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In : AIR 1998 SC 3222 (N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy) also, the trial Court condoned the delay of 883 days in filing the application, but the High Court set aside the order on the ground that proper explanation was not given for the delay. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the findings of the trial court, had observed that the High Court was wrong in obstructing the findings of the trial court when it had given reasons for the condonation of the delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to any appeal or any application except the applications under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, certainly Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked by the petitioner in these proceedings also. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed C.T.M.P. No. 121 of 1996 and another application not only on the ground of delay in filing the application, but also for the reason that it has no powers to invoke Section 9(2) of the Tribunal Regulations to restore the two petitions (C.T.M.P. Nos. 142 of 1995 and 143 of 1995) filed for restoration of the main appeals. Therefore, when the Tribunal has held that it has no power to restore those petitions, even if the delay is condoned to maintain the petitions, the purpose of the petition, namely, restoration of those petitions could not be achieved. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petitions.