Court allows appeals after address change, cites delayed filing issue, emphasizes fair consideration, and no costs.

The court set aside the order returning statutory appeals due to a change of business address notification, allowing the appeals to be received as maintainable. The petitioner's argument regarding delayed filing of appeals due to non-receipt of assessment orders was accepted, giving the benefit of doubt in signature verification issues. The court emphasized fair consideration in such matters and instructed prompt re-presentation of appeals within a specified timeframe. Disputed taxes were partially paid, and the judgment concluded with no costs imposed on the parties.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order returning statutory appeals as belated due to change of business address notification; Non-receipt of assessment orders leading to delayed filing of appeals; Rejection of appeals as non-maintainable based on signature verification; Benefit of doubt to be given to petitioner in signature verification issue; Setting aside of impugned order and directions for receiving appeals as maintainable; Payment status of disputed taxes in TNVAT and CST appeals; Directions for re-presentation of appeals within a specified time frame.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the order returning statutory appeals, citing the change of business address notification as the reason for non-receipt of assessment orders, which led to delayed filing of appeals. The petitioner argued that despite intimating the change of address to the assessing authority, it was unaware of the assessment orders until coercive recovery proceedings were initiated. Upon obtaining certified copies of the orders, the appeals were filed.

The first respondent rejected the appeals as non-maintainable, alleging that the change of business address was not properly intimated since there was no officer with a corresponding signature in the delivery book. However, the court questioned the validity of comparing a signature from 2012 to the current office composition in 2020, emphasizing the need to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner in the absence of malpractice allegations or arguments.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and directions were issued for the first respondent to receive the appeals as maintainable. Notably, 100% of disputed taxes in TNVAT appeals and 25% in CST appeals had been paid, with no dispute on this matter. The court instructed the re-presentation of appeals within two weeks without limitation constraints, to be considered on merits promptly.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with the specified terms, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any costs imposed. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair consideration in signature verification issues and the timely processing of appeals despite initial procedural challenges.

---