Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (12) TMI 1102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner as well as the second respondent Tribunal and they found that there was no substance in the said stand of the petitioner. No hesitation to hold that the mode of service resorted to by the respondents, viz., by registered post with acknowledgment due to serve the order of the revised assessment on the petitioner was perfectly justified. Insofar as the stand of the petitioner that even such service by registered post with acknowledgment due was not properly made, the same was extensively considered both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the second respondent Tribunal and they found that there was no substance in the said stand of the petitioner. Appeal dismissed. - W.P. No. 17442 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2010 - I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with a delay of 490 days, challenging the order dated June 27, 2000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by a lengthy order dated February 28, 2002, rejected the said petition for condonation. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the second respondent-Tribunal and the Tribunal having dismissed the appeal in C.T.A. No. 246/2002 by its order dated June 6, 2003, the petitioner has now come forward with this writ petition. We heard Mr. Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to section 31 of the TNGST Act, which provides for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vised order of assessment, based on the recovery proceedings taken, should be the starting point of limitation for the purpose of filing the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The learned counsel then contended that even if we were to hold that rule 52(1) provides for alternative modes of service of notice, insofar as levy of penalty is concerned, in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution, when the assessing authority invoked section 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act for imposing penalty while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 16 of the Act, the levy of such penalty should be interfered with. The learned counsel, however, fairly brought to our notice a judgment of the Division Bench, State .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the alternative mode of affixing notice in some conspicuous place at the last known business or residence can be resorted to. As far as the modes of service specified in rule 52(1)(a), (b), (c) are concerned, it is for the authorities concerned to resort to anyone of the modes specified therein. In fact, the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Blue Mountain Hosieries reported in [2003] 133 STC 80 (Mad) fully supports the above said view, wherein the earlier decision of this court in A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1973] 31 STC 377 (Mad.) has been referred to, wherein it has been held as under (page 378 in 31 STC): . . . The modes of service referred to in clauses (a) to (c) are only alternative and not cumulative .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... examine the correctness of the said order on the merits. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in stating that the present challenge having been made by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court by article 226, this court could examine the same, cannot also be permitted. In this context it will be appropriate to refer to the Division Bench decision relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader in Quantas Engineers Promoters (P) Limited v. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal [2003] 131 STC 529 (Mad), wherein it was made clear that the remedy under article 226 cannot be used as a magic wand to set at naught the period of limitation. We fully agree with the said statement of law made by the Division Bench of this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates