Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 714 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 714 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay - Delay of 59 days - Delay due to ill health - Held that:- In view of the fact that the petitioner has filed the appeal with 59 days delay and the reason for the said delay was due to the ill health of the petitioner, which is supported by the Certificate given by the Doctor annexed in the typed set of papers and having been satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the intere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rity on merits. - by condoning the delay, this Court permits the petitioner to re-present the appeals before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such re-presentation, the appellate authority is directed to entertain the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - Delay condoned. - W. P. No. 31498 of 2015, M. P. No. 1 of 2015 - Dated:- 6-10-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. K Vaitheeswaran For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itioner is a registered distributor of M/s PEPSICO India Holdings Pvt. Limited, discharging applicable VAT and filing monthly returns regularly. On 28.11.2014, the petitioner received a notice, proposing to levy tax on the discount received at 14.5%, for which, a reply dated 15.12.2014 was submitted by the petitioner on merits and also requesting to provide an opportunity of being heard before passing any orders. However, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 21.01.2015 has passed the assessment or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

14 only. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner was advised to file an appeal. However, from the month of March 2015, due to the ill health of the petitioner, he was undergoing treatment for five months. But, on 20.05.2015, the petitioner, filed an appeal before the appellate authority by remitting 25% of the disputed tax. On 04.06.2015, the appellate authority, stating that since the appeal was filed after a delay of 59 days, as he is empowered to condone only 30 days delay, returned the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner, with respect to return memo of the appellate authority dated 04.06.2015, referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the Judgments of the various High Courts including this Court submitted that the delay can be condoned when it is substantiated with medical certificate proving the illness of the assessee during the relevant period. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Viijayanatabai Baburao Patil v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of the matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed in the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice-that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. By citing the Judgment rendered by this Court in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the delay was occurred in view of fact that the petitioner was suffering viral hepatitis, as a result, the appeal was filed belatedly after a period of 59 days. But, the appellate authority, declining to condone the delay beyond a period of 30 days, return the appeal by memo dated 04.06.2015 as barred by limitation. He would further submit that the delay was occurred due to the ill health of the petitioner and not due to certain malafide reason. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ond the limitation period, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal. 8. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner filed appeals belatedly beyond the period of 60 days (30+30). As per Section 51(1) of the TNVAT Act, any person objecting to an order passed by the assessing authority within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order was served on him can file an ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version