2009 (10) TMI 863 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court clarifies original order not essential for application under section 9(2). Timely filings crucial.

The court clarified that the original order is essential only for calculating the limitation period under regulation 9(3) and not as a condition precedent ... - Issues:Challenge to order of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in two appeals; Non-receipt of order by petitioner leading to ex parte decision; Requirement of original order for filing application under regulation 9(2) of Tribunal Regulations; Lack of clarity on notice issuance to petitioner; Directions for petitioner to file necessary applications under regulation 9(2) within specified time frame.Analysis:The petitioner challenged a common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in two appeals, which were decided ex parte due to the non-receipt of the final hearing notice by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that despite not receiving the order for two years, a notice of attachment was issued, prompting the filing of writ petitions. The issue raised was the necessity of the original order for filing an application under regulation 9(2) of the Tribunal Regulations. The petitioner argued that without the copy of the order, the Tribunal might not entertain an application for setting aside the ex parte order or restoration.The regulation 9(3) stipulates a 30-day period for filing an application under regulation 9(2) from the communication of the dismissal order. The court clarified that the original order is essential only for calculating the limitation period under regulation 9(3). If the order was not communicated, the limitation period does not commence. The court emphasized that the production of the original order is significant only when there is a dispute regarding the date of communication, not as a condition precedent for entertaining an application under section 9(2).The court noted that while the petitioner could have approached the Tribunal under regulation 9(2) without a copy of the order, the lack of clarity on whether the petitioner received any notice of the appeal was a crucial factor. The court suggested that the petitioner should move an application under regulation 9(2) to address this ambiguity. The judgment directed the petitioner to file necessary applications within two weeks, with the Tribunal instructed to entertain the applications even without the original order if it was not served on the petitioner. The Tribunal was also directed to consider any delay applications sympathetically if filed by the petitioner along with the application under regulation 9(2).