Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the tax revision petitions could be condoned, including whether the defect in Form VI was curable and whether limitation had to be computed from service on the State representative or from a later communication to the Deputy Commissioner.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the omission of the Deputy Commissioner's signature and verification in Form VI was a curable defect, particularly as the authorised representative had signed and the form was later re-presented with the defect corrected. On limitation, it construed section 36(8) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, section 38 of that Act, Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, and the Tribunal Regulations to mean that service on the State representative amounted to sufficient service on the Government. The limitation period therefore ran from the earliest valid service, which in the case on hand was already beyond the period within which the Tribunal could condone delay.
Conclusion: The delay was not condonable, and the petitions for condonation were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme treats service on the State representative as sufficient service on the Government, limitation runs from that service, and the Tribunal cannot condone delay beyond the expressly permitted period.