A.R. Lakshmanan, J.@mdashBy consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
2. I have heard Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. C. Govindan, learned Government Advocate, for the
respondent.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to call for the records of the 2nd respondent herein in Tribunal Miscellaneous Petition No. 173 of 1991
in Tribunal Appeal No. 197 of 1990, dated May 10, 1991 and to quash the same.
4. The petitioner is a printing press and has been doing printing works on behalf of his customers. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax by order
of assessment, dated October 14, 1989, by the third respondent. In the assessment order, the 3rd respondent brought to charge and also brought
to tax straw boards u/s 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial taxes, Thanjavur. The best judgment assessment was partly modified. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Tribunal disputing the turnover of Rs. 7,100 sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and levy of penalty of Rs. 178 sustained in the
appeal. In the course of hearing before the 2nd respondent on August 30, 1990, the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
Builders Association of India [1989] 73 STC 370 submitted in the form of additional grounds that the entire labour charges received to the tune of
Rs. 8,00,085 and printing charges of Rs. 2,81,0001 were not assessable to sales tax. It was further state that due to sheer inadvertent omission,
this was not claimed earlier. The petitioner also relied on the Full Bench Decisions of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and
Company [1982] 51 STC 381, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 74 STC 303, Associated
Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1986] 63 STC 63 and Universal Radiators v. State Tamil Nadu [1974] 33 STC 341. The above
additional grounds taken by the petitioner were originally returned by the Secretary of the Tribunal stating that the additional grounds were barred
by limitation. Then the counsel for the petitioner moved the 2nd respondent in open court and pressed the point that the secretary of the Tribunal
had no authority to decide the miscellaneous petition seeking for additional grounds. Thereafter, the second respondent posted the petition T.M.P.
No. 173 of 1991 for consideration on merits. The 2nd respondent, by order dated May 10, 1991, in T.M.P. No. 173 of 1991 in T.A. No. 197 of
1990 has declined to permit the additional grounds to be raised.
5. According to Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned counsel for petitioner, the order of the 2nd respondent is ex facie illegal, without jurisdiction and
contrary to law and hence liable to be quashed. I have also heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
6. In my opinion, the Appellate Tribunal, having held that the filing of the additional grounds is a continuous process of filing the appeal, that the
appeal having been filed in time, the additional grounds which could not be put forth before the lower authority or along with the appeal, could be
raised subsequent to the filing of the appeal, erred in law in dismissing the application for entertaining on the same merits. The Tribunal also having
held that there is no time-limit for filing additional grounds, erred in law in declining to grant the relief payed for. In my view, there is no rigid rule in
force. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the omission to raise the point was absolutely not wanton or willful, but due to inadvertent
omission, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no reason for the Tribunal or for this Court to disbelieve the version or
discredit the reasons advanced by the petitioner. The filing of the additional grounds is only a continuous process of filing the appeal. Hence, I am
of the view that the impugned order is not justified in law of the view that the impugned order is not justified in law refusing to entertain the
additional grounds. In the interest of justice, I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to file the additional grounds.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I quash impugned order dated May 10, 1991 and direct the Appellate Tribunal to receive the additional grounds filed
by the writ petitioner on April 16, 1991, consider the entire case on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording
opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
8. Writ petition allowed.
