Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

icco Engineers Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Iii

icco Engineers vs Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Iii

Disposition Petition allowed Court Chennai Decided Aug 12, 1968
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/799998

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 2076 of 1968
Subject
Sales Tax
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause.

Key legal issue
Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

icco Engineers

Advocate S.C. Shah, Adv.

Respondent

Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Iii

Advocate The Assistant Government Pleader

Legal References

Reported In
[1969]23STC71(Mad)

Excerpt

- - in the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause.orderveeraswami, j.1. there was a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the appellate assistant commissioner (commercial taxes), madras-10, and also while presenting the appeal the second proviso to section 31(1) was not complied with. later on the admitted tax was paid. but it appears on a wrong view of the matter the appellate assistant commissioner found that the appeal was out of time and dismissed it, stating that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.2. we do not think that the second proviso could be mixed up with or both the provisos could be read into one another. they provide for two separate matters. if and when the admitted tax is fully paid the appeal becomes entertainable. nevertheless, the question of limitation may arise. in that event the relevant proviso will be the first one which enables the officer in case of sufficient cause for the delay to excuse the delay. in the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause.3. the writ petition is allowed. there will be a direction to the appellate assistant commissioner aforesaid to entertain the appeal and dispose it of in accordance with law. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Veeraswami, J.

1. There was a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madras-10, and also while presenting the appeal the second proviso to Section 31(1) was not complied with. Later on the admitted tax was paid. But it appears on a wrong view of the matter the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the appeal was out of time and dismissed it, stating that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.

2. We do not think that the second proviso could be mixed up with or both the provisos could be read into one another. They provide for two separate matters. If and when the admitted tax is fully paid the appeal becomes entertainable. Nevertheless, the question of limitation may arise. In that event the relevant proviso will be the first one which enables the officer in case of sufficient cause for the delay to excuse the delay. In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause.

3. The writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner aforesaid to entertain the appeal and dispose it of in accordance with law. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial