2012 (10) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the impugned order of the first respondent, dated July 31, 2012, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, in AP. C. 10/2011, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. It is noted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated July 31, 2012, dismissing the appeal, as not maintainable, as the petitioner had not paid the admitted amount of tax liability, along with 25 per cent of the disputed amount of tax, within the period specified. 4. Paragraph 8 of the order of the first respondent, dated July 31....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mber 11, 2011. As the day (September 11, 2011) falls on Sunday, the appellants filed appeal on September 12, 2011. Verification of the payment details revealed that the appellants have paid Rs. 39,475 towards admitted tax within the prescribed period of 30 days and further period of 30 days as per first proviso of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, whereas, the payment of disputed tax has been made only on September 23, 2011, i.e., after a period of 11 days when calculated from the further period of 30 days. Thus it is crystal clear that the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions specified in the second proviso to section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Thus the eligibility of filing the appeal before this forum....