IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.07.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH TAX CASE (REVISION) No.2378 of 2008 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai Division Madurai-625 020 .. Petitioner /versus/ Tvl. V.Perumal and Co. 34/1, Maniakkara Street Kombai. .. Respondent Tax Case Revision Petitions filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai in Appeal No.496/1992 dated 3.12.1992. (M.P.No.9/92 dated 30.3.1992 on the file of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Madurai (South) Madurai against Asst.No.454528/85-86 dated 31.5.1991 on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Uthamapalayam) For petitioner : Mr.Haja Naziruddin, Special Government Pleader. (T) For respondent : Mr.A.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel Mr.S.Balamurugan O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J) This tax case revision has been filed by the Commercial Tax Department challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales tax Appellate Tribunal dated 3.12.1992 in Tribunal Appeal No. 496 of 1992. The assessment year relates to 1985-86. The assessment order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was dated 31.5.1991. Under Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, as it stood then, the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have been filed within thirty days. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not vested with the power to condone the delay, if the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of thirty days. 2. The assessment order was served on the respondent by affixture on 20.7.1991. On 17.12.1986, by Amendment Act 76 of 1986, a further period of fifteen days was prescribed over and above thirty days for entertaining an appeal, by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if the appeal is not filed within thirty days, the aggrieved party can prefer the appeal by seeking condonation of delay up to a period of fifteen days, over and above the initial period of thirty days for filing the appeal. 3. In the case on hand, the respondent filed the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 27.1.1992. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner taking note of the amendment, which was brought into force by Act 76 of 1986, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, since it was filed beyond sixty days. On appeal, the Tribunal, by the order impugned in this revision, has taken a view that since the assessment year is 1985-86 and the Amended Act 76 of 1986 came into effect on 17.12.1986, the provision which was prevailing prior to the said date would apply and while remanding the case for fresh disposal, the Tribunal directed to find out whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal from the date of service of the order by affixure. 4. Having heard the learned Special Government Pleader for Tax and having perused the assessment order as well as the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we find that the tax determined by the Assessing Authority was in a sum of Rs.40,527/- and the tax paid was Rs.800/- and a balance of Rs.38,727/- had to be paid by the assessee. 5. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, as the respondent-assessee filed the appeal on 27.1.1992 , on which date the Amended Act 76 of 1986 had come into effect, it will have to be held that there was no provision providing for filing the appeal beyond thirty days, with any unlimited extended period to seek for condonation of delay. In other words, as on the date of filing of the appeal by the respondent–assessee namely, on 27.1.1992, when Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, as it stood, provided for filing the appeal within thirty days and seek for condonation of delay only for fifteen days beyond the initial period of thirty days, it will have to be held that the said legal position, based on the amended Section 31 by Act 76 of 1986, alone would prevail. If that be so, the order of the Tribunal in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ holding that the amended provision cannot be applied to the case on hand and only the old provision of the Act that existed prior to 17.12.1986 would apply, is not the correct legal position. 7. We, therefore, allow this revision petition and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. Tr/ To 1. The Assistant Registrar Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB) Madurai 2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Madurai (south) Madurai 3. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Madurai Division , Madurai 625 020 4. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Uthamapalayam 1 cc to the Spl Government Pleader (T) Sr. 52995 T.C.(R).No.2378 of 2008 JRG (CO) kk 25/8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/