Skip to content


icco Engineers Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Iii - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number Writ Petition No. 2076 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1969]23STC71(Mad)
Appellanticco Engineers
RespondentAppellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Iii
Appellant Advocate S.C. Shah, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Assistant Government Pleader
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - in the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause.orderveeraswami, j.1. there was a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the appellate assistant commissioner (commercial taxes), madras-10, and also while presenting the appeal the second proviso to section 31(1) was not complied with. later on the admitted tax was paid. but it appears on a wrong view of the matter the appellate assistant commissioner found that the appeal was out of time and dismissed it, stating that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.2. we do not think that the second proviso could be mixed up with or both the provisos could be read into one another. they provide for two separate matters. if and when the admitted tax is fully paid the appeal becomes entertainable. nevertheless, the question of limitation may arise. in that event the relevant proviso will.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Veeraswami, J.

1. There was a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madras-10, and also while presenting the appeal the second proviso to Section 31(1) was not complied with. Later on the admitted tax was paid. But it appears on a wrong view of the matter the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the appeal was out of time and dismissed it, stating that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.

2. We do not think that the second proviso could be mixed up with or both the provisos could be read into one another. They provide for two separate matters. If and when the admitted tax is fully paid the appeal becomes entertainable. Nevertheless, the question of limitation may arise. In that event the relevant proviso will be the first one which enables the officer in case of sufficient cause for the delay to excuse the delay. In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause.

3. The writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner aforesaid to entertain the appeal and dispose it of in accordance with law. No costs.


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