Skip to content


Andal Sweet Stall and TiffIn Dining Hall Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Nos. 782 and 783 of 1980 (Revision Nos. 440 and 441 of 1980)
Judge
Reported in[1981]48STC551(Mad)
ActsTamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Sections 31(1)
AppellantAndal Sweet Stall and TiffIn Dining Hall
RespondentState of Tamil Nadu
Advocates:V. Narayanamurthy, Adv.
Cases ReferredNorthern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Excerpt:
- - the proviso to that sub-section says that the appellate assistant commissioner may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. consequently, the tax revision cases fail and are dismissed......596 of 1979. the petitioners herein preferred appeals against the orders of assessment before the appellate assistant commissioner after a period of 30 days from the date on which the orders of assessment were served. as a matter of fact, the appeals were very much belated. but the petitioners contended that they came to know that the transactions effected by them were not liable to sales tax only from the judgment of the supreme court reported in northern india caterers (india) ltd. v. lt. governor of delhi : [1979]1scr557 and within 30 days from the date of their knowledge of that decision they had filed the appeals in question and, therefore, the delay, if any, involved in filing the appeals should be excused. the appellate assistant commissioner declined to condone the delay. the.....
Judgment:

Ismail, C.J.

1. These are petitions to revise the common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras-1, dated 24th October, 1979, made in Tribunal Appeals Nos. 232, 512, 595 and 596 of 1979. The petitioners herein preferred appeals against the orders of assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after a period of 30 days from the date on which the orders of assessment were served. As a matter of fact, the appeals were very much belated. But the petitioners contended that they came to know that the transactions effected by them were not liable to sales tax only from the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi : [1979]1SCR557 and within 30 days from the date of their knowledge of that decision they had filed the appeals in question and, therefore, the delay, if any, involved in filing the appeals should be excused. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner declined to condone the delay. The appeals preferred against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were also dismissed. Hence, the present tax revision cases.

2. Under section 31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, any person objecting to an order passed by the appropriate authority under the sections referred to therein may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him in the manner prescribed, appeal against such order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction. The proviso to that sub-section says that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. Admittedly, in this case, after the orders of assessment were passed, the petitioners did not prefer appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner within the prescribed time. Obviously they did not intend to prefer appeals. Only after the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment in

3. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi : [1979]1SCR557 , the appellants started fling the appeals in question and consequently the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in holding that the petitioners had not established sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed period, because, a judgment pronounced by a court long after the expiry of the period of limitation cannot be taken advantage of for filing an appeal with a petition to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the tax revision cases fail and are dismissed.

4. Petitions dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //