Srj 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1716 OF 2009 Seva Enterprises & Anr., .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., .. Respondents. Ms. Nikita R. Badheka with Mr. M.M.Vaidya, for Petitioners Mr. V.A.Sonpal, A Panel Counsel for Respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO and D.G.KARNIK, JJ. DATED: 11th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1. Rule. 2. The Petitioners have approached this Court against an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, wherein various contentions had been raised. The Petitioners had filed said appeal against the order of Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal), dismissing the same as barred by limitation. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Best Judgment Orders was served on the Petitioner on 7th April, Srj 2 2003. On 12th April, 2003, the Petitioner was admitted in hospital and was kept in ICU ward. 4. In these circumstances, the Petitioner totally lost sight of the orders which were served upon him. 5. The Petitioner submits that the business was closed down sometime in the year 2000. The other partner who is son of the Petitioner, is residing in England and in these circumstances, no steps had been taken for preferring an Appeal in time. The Petitioner came to know about non filing of the appeal when the Respondent wanted to dispose of his flat and had gone for N.O.C from the Society. The Petitioner was informed of the order of attachment passed by the Sales Tax Authority. 6. In our opinion, considering the fact and circumstances, no point will be served to remand the matter to the Second Appellate Tribunal or the First Appellate Tribunal. 7. Considering the cause shown, the Petitioner has made out a case of sufficient cause and in these circumstances,in our opinion, the ends of justice will be met, if the orders of the First and Second Appellate Authority and the Judgment/orders passed by the Assessing Officer are set aside and restored to file Assessing Officer and Petitioner is given an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce whatever evidence he may have and, Srj 3 thereafter, to dispose off the matter according to law. 6. In the light of that, orders of the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 60 to 65 of 2008 dated 15th July, 2008, the order of rectification dated 27th April, 2009 in Tribunal Rectification No.93 to 98 of 2008, and similarly, the orders of the First Appellate Authority dated 7th November, 2007 as also the Exparte Assessment orders for the Assessment years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, all dated 31st March, 2003, are set aside and the matter is restores to file of Assessing Officer on the Petitioner paying costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- in favour of Respondent No.2, within 2 weeks from today. The Petitioner to remain present before the Assessing Authority, on 29th September, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. who thereafter will to proceed with the matter and complete the proceedings not later than 6 months from that date. Rule made absolute accordingly. 7. We make it clear that we have not set aside the order of attachment, which will continue till final order passed by the Assessing Officer and recovery is made, of any dues if any, in terms of the fresh orders that may so passed. We make it further clear that the Assessing Officer to proceed to dispose of the proceedings without considering the time limit, if any, under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Maharashtra Sales Srj 4 Tax Tribunal, 1956. Both the parties have no objection to the same, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)