THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.6872 OF 2010 DATED 29TH MARCH, 2010 BETWEEN M/s.Vineet Agencies, Plot No.264, New Vivekananda, Borabanda, Hyderabad, Represented by its Proprietor Sri A.Baleshwar. … Petitioner And Commercial Tax Officer, Vengalrao Nagar Circle, Hyderabad. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.6872 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per TMK,J) This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the second respondent in A.R.Sl.No.P/260/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner beyond the statutory period of 30 days was rejected on the ground that no delay condonation petition was filed along with the appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 29.12.2009 but there was a delay of 26 days in preferring the same. It is stated that though the appeal papers were signed by the petitioner within the period of 30 days, the same were mixed up with the bundle of a different firm and it was noticed at a later date. Immediately thereafter, the appeal was preferred within the extended period of limitation of 30 days. However, the second respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the appeal was rejected under the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the preferring of the appeal, the petitioner had filed a petition seeking to condone the delay on 23.03.2010 and that a suitable direction may be given to the second respondent to consider the delay condonation petition along with appeal as the second respondent is vested with the power to condone the delay of a further period of 30 days after the expiry of the statutory period of 30 days for preferring the appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submitted that the delay condonation petition was not filed along with the appeal and the same has been filed only subsequent to the preferring of the appeal and therefore the impugned order passed by the second respondent does not call for any interference by this Court. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the matter is remitted to the second respondent to consider and dispose of the delay condonation petition along with the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law and the order under challenge is set aside subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 1/4th of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amounts paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _____________________________ SMT. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. 29TH MARCH, 2010. VGSR/PGS