IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.09.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Writ Appeal Nos.2620 & 2623 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18824 and 18831 of 2024 Jay Em Exports Represented by its Proprietor New No.54, K.B.Dasan Road, SIET Administrative Block Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ... Appellant in both appeals Vs.

The State Tax Officer Alwarpet Assessment Circle Chennai. .... Respondent in both appeals -----

Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.07.2023 in W.P.Nos.10567 of 2021.

-----

For Appellant : Mr.A.P.Srinivas For Respondent : Ms.Amritha Porkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

The appellant is a dealer under TNGST Act of 1959. In respect of assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, original assessment orders were passed by the Revenue on 14.09.2005 and 31.10.2006 respectively. Thereafter, notice was issued for revision of assessment and ultimately revised assessment orders were passed for both the assessment years on 30.12.2011. Challenging the said revised assessment orders dated 30.12.2011, the appellant dealer filed writ petitions in the first round of litigation before this Court in W.P.Nos.8643 & 8644 of 2012.

2. The main ground urged by the dealer / appellant herein before the writ Court in the said writ petitions was that those revised assessment orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. On that ground itself, the revised assessment orders were set aside and the writ petitions were ordered by order dated 13.12.2012 by the writ Court, remitting the matter back to the assessing officer for reconsideration and re-assessment, of course after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant / dealer.

3. In pursuance of the remand order made by the writ Court, the Revenue issued a letter on 08.01.2013, directing the appellant / dealer to appear for personal hearing on 21.01.2013. The appellant / dealer filed a reply on 18.01.2013 that he had to undergo a major surgery and therefore he wanted 30 days time to attend the personal hearing. Thereafter, there had been no communication from the Revenue according to the appellant / dealer.

4. On 05.03.2013, on behalf of the appellant / dealer, his counsel issued a letter to the Government Pleader about the filing of the writ appeal against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 13.12.2012. It is to be noted herein that, even though the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted back by the writ Court by order dated 13.12.2012, still aggrieved by the order of the writ Court, the appellant filed writ appeals ie., intra Court appeals before this Court with petitions to condone the delay of few days ie., 5 and 9 days respectively.

5. At that stage ie., the writ appeals at the SR stage with notice ordered were kept pending for nearly about nine years before this Court. During this period, it is to be noted that the appellant / dealer has not taken any effective steps to bring the condone delay petitions and get the delay of 5 and 9 days to be condoned, which will be normally done by this Court invariably in all these cases. However, for the reasons best known to the appellant, they have not taken any steps to bring the CMPs to condone the delay and at that stage, it was pending for nine years as stated supra.

6. Thereafter, on 04.11.2020 the Revenue issued a letter asking the appellant to produce the orders if any passed by the High Court on the appeals filed by them. The appellant had given a reply on 16.11.2020 stating that the appeals were pending and the dealer is 77 years old and due to his advanced age and health conditions, business could not be carried on and the GST registration also was surrendered and cancelled. In fact, he had requested the Revenue to drop the proposals.

7. However, the Revenue issued a letter dated 23.11.2020 asking the petitioner to appear in person on 15.12.2020. The petitioner