TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initely justified in claiming compensation from the defendants. But the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for compensation within time - The cause of action for the plaintiff arose on 11.05.2004. The plaintiff instead of filing a suit for damages within six months from the said date chose to file writ petition followed by writ appeal and review petition. In the review petition, the plaintiff pleaded that since his writ appeal was dismissed by granting him liberty to work out his remedy before the civil Court, it should be clarified that the same would be a common law remedy dehors Section 49 and 50 of the TNGST Act. By invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the bar of limitation could be overcome. In computing the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on civil proceeding occurring in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. But the plaintiff herein filed W.P.(MD)No.1872 of 2005 only on 09.03.2005. By then, the limitation prescribed by Section 50 of the TNGST Act had already expired. Invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be of no avail. That is why, the plaintiff filed Review Application No.50 of 2007 and pleaded for grant of appropriate liberty which would help him to surmount the himalayan barrier erected by the said provision. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not grant any such relief. The result of applying the limitation bar contained in Section 50 of TNGST Act has operated very harshly on the appellant - Appeal dismissed. - A.S.(MD)No.26 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a period of five weeks. 3. Challenging the same, the plaintiff moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which upheld the submission of the plaintiff as regards nonservice of the assessment order. The department was directed to serve the assessment order, so as to enable the plaintiff to file an appeal before the appellate authority. Pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court, copies of the assessment order were served on the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Tirunelveli who vide order dated 11.05.2004 allowed the appeal and set aside the levy of sales tax. 4. Earlier, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 14.12.2002 addressed to the defendants demandin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff was put to untold hardship only because the defendants took a false stand that the order reopening the assessments was served on the plaintiff. In fact, the said order was served on an unconnected entity by name R.K.Enterprises. Therefore, the defendants ought to appropriately compensate the plaintiff. The Court below had erroneously applied the rule of limitation and nonsuited the plaintiff. According to the appellant's counsel, there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. 6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference. 7.The point that arises for my consideration is as to whether the suit in question can be said to be time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Division Bench observed that it was for the plaintiff herein to work out his remedy in the manner known to law and dismissed the review petition. 8.The observation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot in any manner advance the case of the plaintiff. The suit in question was filed only on 10.09.2008 more than four years after the cause of action arose. 9. Section 50 of TNGST Act, 1959, would clearly apply to the case on hand. That is why, the trial Court non-suited the plaintiff on that ground. I wondered if by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the bar of limitation could be overcome. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeding which proves to be abortive and no decision could be rendered on merits, the time taken in such proceeding ought to be excluded as otherwise the person who has approached the Court in such proceeding would be penalized for no fault of his own. The Hon'ble Supreme Court however clarified that the period prior to the initiation of any abortive proceeding cannot be excluded for the simple reason that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not enable the litigant to get a benefit beyond what is contemplated by the section- that is to put the litigant in the same position as if the abortive proceeding had never taken place. 10. In the case on hand, the limitation period was six months. The cause of action commenced on 11.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
