THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.14554 OF 2009 DT.14.06.2010 PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Between: M/s.Hanuman Traders …………Petitioner Vs. The Commercial Tax Offier, Nizamabad and another. ……………..Respondents. O R D E R: Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) dated 04.07.2008, refusing to condone the delay of 73 days in preferring the appeal, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is a Proprietory concern, and a Registered Dealer on the rolls of the first respondent. It is carrying on trading activity in the second sale of cement having purchased the same from M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited, Malkapur, Ranga Reddy District. It is the petitioner’s case that the assessing authority passed an order of assessment beyond the period of limitation. Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this court to the order of assessment passed by the first respondent, to contend that the said order does not even bear a date and, since the period of limitation expired on 31.03.2008, and a copy thereof was served on 11.04.2008, the order of assessment is barred by limitation. While it is true that the order of assessment does not bear a date, the month and year are shown as March-2008 and, since the limitation period expired only after 31.03.2008, it cannot be said that the order passed was beyond the period of limitation. Service of a copy, within 11 days after passing of the order, cannot be said to be so in ordinate, as to hold that the undated order was passed beyond limitation. Sri K.Durga Prasad, Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s father died on 15.05.2009 (which is more than a year after the date of receipt of a copy of the order of assessment.) The death of the petitioner’s father has, evidently, no connection with the delay in filing the appeal. The order of the appellate authority, refusing to condone the delay, cannot therefore be faulted in as much as the petitioner has neither shown cause for the delay in preferring the appeal either before the appellate authority or before this court. We see no reason to interfere with the said order. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J., Dt.14.06.2010 tjs