:1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1222 OF 2010 M/s.Sambhav Interchem Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.C.B.Thakkar i/b. C.B.Thakkar & Co. for petitioner. Mr.V.A. Sonpal, “A” Pane Counsel for respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & S.J.KATHAWALLA,JJ. DATE :- 1ST JULY, 2010. P.C. Heard. Perused petition. 2. The factual matrix reveals that the assessment order dated 31st March, 2001 suffered by the petitioner was challenged in the first appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai, wherein the present petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- as a condition of stay. 3. Against the above order an Appeal bearing No.1579 of 2001 was preferred by the petitioner. During the pendency of this appeal, the first appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 31st March, 2001 was dismissed on 30th August, 2001. This fact of dismissal was neither made known to the parties nor to the second Appellate Authority (the Tribunal). With the result, the Tribunal was pleased to allow Second Appeal vide its order dated 29th June,2005 reducing the amount of pre-deposit from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. :2: 4. After having obtained above order in the appeal, the petitioner came to know that his first appeal was already dismissed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax vide order dated 30th August, 2001. 5. The petitioner was advised to prefer appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 30th August, 2001 passed by the 1st appellate authority dismissing appeal which according to the petitioner was preferred and came to be registered as second appeal No.725 of 2002. 6. When the above second appeal came up for hearing on merits before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the subject appeal believing that the earlier second appeal No.1579 of 2001 having already allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29th June, 2005, would take care of the interest of the appellant-petitioner herein; though the 1st appeal against the order of Assessing Officer was already dismissed. After having realized the mistake of withdrawing the second appeal bearing No.725 of 2002, the petitioner applied for restoration of that second appeal bearing No.725 of 2002. However, the Tribunal was pleased to reject prayer for restoration vide its order dated 7th September, 2006. The petitioner, thereafter, chose to file another second appeal against the order of Assessing Officer which came to be rejected by an order dated 4th January, 2010 as not tenable. 7. In the above factual matrix, the petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with prayer of restoration of the first appeal with further direction to the first appellate authority to hear it on merits. Alternatively, petitioner has also prayed for restoration of second appeal No.725 of 2002. In the alternative, petitioner has also prayed for condonation of delay in filing restoration application No.5 of 2006 which was rejected by an order dated 7th September, 2006. By way of another alternative prayer, petitioner has also prayed that the Tribunal be directed to consider afresh the question of restoration of the second appeal bearing No. :3: 241 of 2007 with a declaration that such an appeal was maintainable. 8. Having seen the prayer clauses, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal for the simple reason that the petitioner has neither challenged the order dated 7th September, 2006 whereby the restoration application was rejected nor the order dated 4th January, 2010 whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal. 9. In the above view of the matter, both the orders dated 7th September, 2006 and 4th January, 2010 have become final and conclusive for want of challenge. The present petition is, thus, without any merit. Hence, the same stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)