Statutory limitation and pre-deposit: revision remained entertainable, and the assessee could pursue the appeal on compliance with conditions.

A revision under section 38-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was not barred merely because no limitation period had been prescribed under the first proviso; the absence of a prescribed time limit meant the proviso did not operate to defeat the remedy, and the dismissal on that ground was quashed. Because the Special Tribunal was stated to be non-functional, the assessee was also allowed to pursue the statutory appeal under section 36 if filed within one month, with no objection on limitation, while the mandatory pre-deposit requirement continued to apply. The writ petition was thus allowed in part and the appellate remedy preserved on compliance with statutory conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision under section 38-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was not maintainable merely because no period of limitation had been prescribed under the first proviso to that section. (ii) Whether, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the assessee should be permitted to pursue the statutory appeal under section 36 of the Act without objection as to limitation.

Issue (i): Whether a revision under section 38-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was not maintainable merely because no period of limitation had been prescribed under the first proviso to that section.

Analysis: The first proviso to section 38-A contemplates a prescribed period for preferring an application to the Special Tribunal. If no period has in fact been prescribed, the proviso does not become operative so as to bar the remedy. The absence of a prescribed limitation does not render the revision non-maintainable; on the contrary, the revision remains entertainable.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the revision on the ground of absence of prescribed limitation was incorrect and the impugned order was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the assessee should be permitted to pursue the statutory appeal under section 36 of the Act without objection as to limitation.

Analysis: Since the Special Tribunal was stated to be non-functional, the matter could not be remitted back there. The assessee had an existing right of appeal under section 36, and the Court considered it appropriate to preserve that remedy by directing that an appeal filed within one month be entertained without objection as to limitation. At the same time, the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under section 36 remained applicable.

Conclusion: The assessee was granted liberty to file the appeal within one month and obtain consideration on merits, subject to compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part: the adverse order was set aside, and the assessee was allowed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy subject to the prescribed pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory proviso requiring a prescribed limitation has not been brought into operation by prescription of any time limit, the remedy is not barred for want of limitation; an affected party may also be permitted, in appropriate circumstances, to invoke the alternate statutory appellate remedy subject to compliance with mandatory conditions such as pre-deposit.

---