AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties. 2. The Respondent by Order Nos. TNGST 3223580 / 2002-03 dated 23.03.2018, TNGST 3223580 / 2003-2004 dated 23.03.2018 and TNGST 3223580 / 2004-2005 dated 07.05.2018 had re-assessed the liability of the tax in connection with the use of chemicals in printing works for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNGST Act' for short) in respect of the Petitioner, who had received the copies of those orders on 15.05.2018, 14.04.2018 and 14.05.2018 respectively. The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against those orders under Section 31 of TNGST Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of their receipt before the Appellate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on inasmuch as a person, who has preferred appeal before the Statutory Authority, cannot be more blameworthy than one who has not at all preferred such appeal. The obvious rationale behind the governing dictum is that where the maximum period of limitation prescribed in the statute for preferring appeal against an order before the Appellate Authority has lapsed, it is not permissible to circumvent the legislative intent manifested in that bar created by resorting to thereafter invoke the discretionary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is immaterial whether or not such time-barred appeal had been preferred to the Appellate Authority before filing of the Writ Petition. 4. Despite this Court highlighting tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington -vs- British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 [Sub nom British Railways Board -vs- Herrington (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]]. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases." At the same time, it must be recapitulated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sales Tax Officer -vs- Sudarsanam Iyengar & Sons [(1969) 2 SCC 396] has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to analogous provisions in sales-tax statute must be followed as otherwise the purpose of a provision like Rule 33 can be completely defeated by taking certain collateral proceedings and obtaining a stay order as was done in the present case or by unduly delaying assessment proceedings beyond a period of three years." The aforesaid binding ruling has been followed by the Full Bench of this Court in M.Gulam Mohideen -vs- Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Board of Revenue (AIR 1978 Mad 327), where it has been held as follows:- "10. In State of Punjab -vs- Tarachand Lajpat Raj [19 STC 493] the Court was considering the scope of sub-S.(4) and (5) of S.11 of the Punjab General Salestax Act, 1948. It was held in that case tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch one of the steps in the process is a revisional process. Therefore, if any one of the steps in the process has been initiated within the period of limitation, there is no further limitation on the exercise of the power." The proposition canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which is in blatant contravention of these authoritative pronouncements holding the field, cannot be countenanced. 5. It has been clearly explained in the impugned orders itself that though in the order dated 01.09.2006 in the earlier Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 15355 and 15356 of 2005 filed by the Petitioner challenging the notices to re-assess the tax, this Court had permitted to proceed further in accordance with law, the assessing authority wa....