2010 (4) TMI 1005

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s court declining interference in the writ petition, which admittedly has become final on dismissal of the writ appeal. With regard to the sequence of events, case of the petitioner is that, he was engaged in some petty rubber trade dealing with raw rubber and when the respondents completed the assessment without any regard to the actual facts and figures and the mandatory requirements under the statute, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 38448 of 2003, which led to exhibit P3 judgment. As per exhibit P3, the assessment orders were set aside and the departmental authorities were directed to furnish copies of the relevant proceedings first and then finalise the assessment. Pursuant to exhibit P3, provisional asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tribunal as well, for enabling the petitioner to have contested the matter in "forma pauperis". Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by the apex court in State of Haryana v. Smt.Darshana Devi AIR 1979 SC 855.   After considering the various contentions raised by the petitioner, it was held by this court that the challenge raised against the statutory prescription to remit the additional court fee was quite wrong and misconceived, in view of the declaration of law by a single Bench of this court as per the decision in A.P. Ismail (Anwar Traders) v. State of Kerala [2006] 144 STC 476; [2005] 3 KLT 1052 and affirmed by the Division Bench as per the decision rendered in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case in hand. Going by the said decision, it is seen that the issue considered therein was whether the revision petition filed under section 41 of the KGST Act was maintainable or not, if the appeal preferred before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same. After considering the relevant provisions of law, it was observed by this court that, on dismissal of the appeals refusing to entertain the same beyond the period of limitation, by virtue of "proviso" to section 39(1) of the KGST Act; the order declining to entertain the appeals by the Tribunal was not revisable under section 79(1) of the KGST Act. However, one sentence was also added in the following manner. "It will be open to challenge orders 'probab....