1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.6192 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 M/s. Sree Gomathi Electronics Represented by its Proprietor Athishesan 256/2, Main Road Arumuganeri - 628 202 Tuticorin District. : Petitioner Vs The Commercial Tax Officer Thiruchendur Tuticorin District : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN No 33255900561 dated 30.11.2010 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 18.12.2010 and pass fresh assessment order after furnishing the records as required by the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondent : Mr.TR.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader ORDER Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By mutual consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of assessment passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. 3. When the matter was taken up, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would fairly submit that the petitioner, without preferring an Appeal, inadvertently filed a Petition under Section 51(2) for re-opening the assessment. Unfortunately, this Petition was also dismissed on 11.04.2011. He would only contend that as per the assessment order, he ought to have preferred an Appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Though he received the copy of the order dated 30.11.2010, only on 11.12.2010, he had preferred this application under Section 51(2) within 7 days ie., on 18.12.2010 itself. Therefore, he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 bona fide in prosecuting the appeal provision in a different forum within a period of 30 days. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has now advised his client to prefer an appeal and he only seeks that the Department may be directed to consider the pathetic view of the petitioner for challenging the same in a wrong forum. 5. The petitioner is permitted to approach the appropriate authority with an appeal with necessary condonation application and it is for the authority to consider the pendency of the application under Section 51(2) in so far as relates to the purpose of limitation. 6. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District. +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.18594 W.P.(MD).No.6192 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 14.06.2011 vsg PA/27.06.2011/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/