By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, MAY 23, 2017: THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order(s) in original dated 30.08.2010, 02.05.2011, 20.05.2014 and 31.07.2012, and a consequential demand notice dated 20.03.2017.

Incidentally, although against the order in original passed by the first respondent, a statutory appeal remedy was available to the petitioner, the petitioner had not availed the same and only when the consequential demand notice was issued, did they rush to the High Court.

The petitioner submitted that the appeal was not filed in time since there was a change of officer in the petitioner's Municipality, and that the previous officer had not taken steps to file such appeals in time. It is further informed that as against the total demand, the petitioner so far paid Rs.13,64,000/- which is, more than 60% of the Tax demand.

The High Court observed -

++ Court is of the view that the petitioner has to only seek for alternative remedy before the First Appellate Authority and canvass all the points raised in this writ petition. As it is admitted that the petitioner has also paid more than 60% of the tax demand, there cannot be any difficulty for the petitioner to seek for an Interim Stay of further recovery, pending disposal of the first appeal.

The writ petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the First Appellate Authority, within a period of four weeks.

And on receipt of such appeals, the First Appellate Authority was directed to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation.

(See 2017-TIOL-970-HC-MAD-ST)