9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner is a building contractor and a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mandaveli Assessment Circle. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessing officer by his proceedings in TNGST No. 0761287/1999-2000 dated August 22, 2003, determined a total and taxable turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 7,48,787 and Rs. 7,07,419, respectively. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal in A.P. No. 200 of 2003 was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) IV and the same was dismissed on April 6, 2004 and a copy of the order was served on the petitioner on April 30, 2004. Against which, a second appeal was filed under section 36 of the TNGST Act before the second respondent, the Tam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reasonable time and that before rejecting the appeal, the second respondent ought to have fixed a date of hearing, after giving notice to the assessee. He also submitted that as per the calculation, there is only a delay of 34 days in filing the statutory appeal, which is within the extended period of limitation provided under section 36 of the TNGST Act. On the other hand, Mr. J. Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements under section 36(1) of the TNGST Act. He further submitted that the words "any appeal shall be entertained" in section 36(1)(a) means that an assessee should have filed satisfactory proof of payment of tax admitted by him, due to the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shall call upon the party by a notice in form A in the Schedule to these regulations to remedy the defect or defects within a reasonable period specified by him. The Secretary may for sufficient cause extend the period. If the defect or defects are remedied within the period allowed, the Secretary shall cause the appeal to be registered." It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal papers were returned for production of payment receipts and the same were re-presented on August 6, 2004. If that be the case, the proper course to be adopted by the second respondent is that he should have asked the petitioner/assessee to file an application for condonation of delay, if it exceeds more than 60 days, as per section 36(1) of the Act or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
