TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. It is clear that the petitioner had not shown acceptable reasons for granting the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. In favour of revenue - W.P.No.24416 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2012 - MR. M. JAICHANDREN J. For Petitioner: Mr. A.P. Srinivas For Respondents: Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai (T) for R2 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, in spite of sufficient cause having been shown, by the petitioner, to condone the delay of 429 days in filing the restoration petition, the first respondent Tribunal had dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the said petition had been dismissed, by an order, dated 2.9.2005, stating that there were no acceptable reasons adduced by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay of 18 days in filing the petition to restore the appeal, in T.A.No.1198 of 2002. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed another petition, in T.M.P.No.171 of 2008, for restoring the petition, in T.M.P.No.203 of 2004, and for passing of orders in accordance with law. The Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai, by its order, dated 2.9.2009, had dismissed the said petition stating that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to pursue its remedy. Even though the petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2004/A2 was dismissed in the proceedings dated 2.9.2009. Against this proceedings dated 2.9.2009, the petitioner again filed restoration petition on 13.12.2010 and as this petition was filed with delay of more than one year, the petitioner again filed delay condonation petition requesting to condone delay of 429 days in filing the restoration petition and this delay condonation petition with request to restore the TMP in 203/2004/A2 was filed on 13.12.2010. Thus, it is seen that though the appeal was filed in 2002 neither the appellant/dealer nor the Authorised Representative took any sincere efforts to pursue the case. Further, the reasons adduced in delay condonation in representation of TMP with 429 days is found not convincing. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner had been dragging on the proceedings, successfully, without having any merits in its claims. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petition, with exemplary costs, as it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, by the petitioner. In support of his contention the learned counsel had relied on the decisions, 1) Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 685 and in Kasipalayam Town Panchayat Vs. Arumugam, to state that, while considering an application for the condonation of delay, no straight-jacket formula can be prescribed, as each case is to be weighed on its facts and circumstances, and that such an application ought not to be dismissed, on mere hyper-technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
