TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 912
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner against the assessment order of the second respondent dated June 27, 2006. The brief facts relevant herein are that the petitioner was works con tractor and was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has for the assessment year 2004-05 filed the return reporting taxable turnover of Rs. 2,23,59,709 consisting of works contract sales turnover of grid and sales turnover of PVC Board and PVC tiles. The assessment return was accepted by the authority concerned with due acknowledgment dated April 14, 2004. The second respondent has thereafter issued notice on March 10, 2006 thereby, intimating the petitioner for its proposal to levy 20 per cent tax on the works ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the appeal is only 16 days coming within the outer-limit of 30 days specified under the proviso to section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. However, the first respondent-appellate authority dismissed the petition for condoning the delay mainly on the ground that the total number of delay is 63 days and the first respondent is having authority to condone the delay of maximum limit of only 30 days and as the same is beyond 30 days, the first respondent has no authority to entertain the petition and the appeal is time-barred. Such order passed by the first respondent is now under challenge before this court. It is now argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the peti tioner was on earlier occasion, bona fide prose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e earlier order till the date of filing of the appeal is 63 days, part of delay to be excluded according to the petitioner is the timegap between the date of assessment order and the date of disposal of the writ petition, i.e., July 5, 2006 to August 3, 2006 which comes to 29 and the date on which the writ order was made ready and writ appeal is preferred and disposed of, i.e., between August 21, 2006 and September 11, 2006 comes to 19 days and if the total period during which the proceedings were pending before the High Court stands excluded the delay period falls within outer-limit of the authority concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the following judgments in support of his contention: (1) The Division Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act, the Supreme Court and our High Court are pleased to condone the same as sought for by the respective petitioners therein. That being the dictum laid down in the authorities above cited, the same is squarely applicable to the period of delay occurred herein, wherein also the total number of delay after excluding the period spent before this court is less than 30 days. The same is having regard to the reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the delay petition and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is permitted in writ appeal to file the statutory appeal along with petition to condone delay and by adopting liberal attitude as per well-settled legal position in the matter of condoning delay ought to have bee....