1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/09/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition (MD)No.10846 of 2011 M/s.Sree Gomathi Electronics Represented by its Proprietor Athishesan 256/2 Main Road Arumuganeri ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Tirunelveli. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruchendur. ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceedings No.A/713/2011 dated 21.07.2011 and quash as illegal and further direct the first respondent to entertain the appeal. For Petitioner ...Mr.S.Karunakar For respondents ...Mr.TR.Janarthanam Addl. Government Pleader O R D E R The writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority, namely, the first respondent herein, who has returned the appeal papers filed by the petitioner against the order of assessment passed by the second respondent, dated 30.11.2010 on the ground that the appeal has been filed belatedly and there was no direction by this Court on the earlier occasion and the appeal has also been filed without the original disputed assessment order. 2. It is seen that as against the original assessment order passed by the second respondent, dated 30.11.2010, instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner has given his objections to the second respondent on 18.12.2010 and the period of limitation for filing an appeal expired and even after the condonable period of 30 days, it appears that the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD) No.6192 of 2011, that came to be disposed of on 14.06.2011 by this Court, permitting the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum with necessary condonation application. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an appeal, admittedly, without enclosing the original disputed assessment order and without any application for condonation, as directed by this Court. It was, in those circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent in returning the papers on the above said two grounds. 3. When admittedly, the petitioner has presented an appeal before the first respondent, even after the condonable limit, there is no question of filing an application for condoning the further delay and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appellate authority himself has no such power to condone the delay, after the period of limitation of 30 days. It is seen that even in the earlier order passed by this Court, the petitioner has not taken any efforts to receive back the original assessment order, which was filed in this Court. It was due to this reason, the petitioner was unable to enclose the original disputed assessment order. 4. Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that while filing the appeal, the petitioner complied with the requirement of payment of ¼th of the tax, which has been assessed under the impugned order of assessment. 5. Taking note of the fact that the non returning of the original order of assessment by this Court, has resulted in filing the appeal after condonable limit and in not enclosing the original order, while filing the appeal before the first respondent, I am of the considered view that the petitioner must be given one more opportunity by the first respondent appellate authority, to proceed the issue on merits. Accordingly, if the petitioner re-present the appeal papers along with necessary materials enclosing the original of the impugned assessment order within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the first respondent appellate Authority, shall receive the appeal and decide the same on merits without again rejecting it on the ground of limitation. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Tirunelveli. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruchendur. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.33100 RR SR : 26.09.2011 : 2p/4c Writ Petition No.10846 of 2011 23.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/