Split verdict for condonation of 78 days delay sir HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR CMP.Nos.13059, 13056 & 13049 of 2025 in TC.SR.Nos.173829, 173758 & 173732 of 2024 and T.C.No.63 of 2025 The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Joint Commissioner (CT) Chennai (East) Division,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 28.08.2025
Pronounced on : 17.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
CMP.Nos.13059, 13056 & 13049 of 2025 in
TC.SR.Nos.173829, 173758 & 173732 of 2024 and
T.C.No.63 of 2025
The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The Joint Commissioner (CT)
Chennai (East) Division,
Chennai – 600 006 .. Petitioner/Appellant in all cases
vs
Tvl.SPI Cinemas Private Limited,
No.25, Mamatha Complex,
Whites Road,
Royapettah,
Chennai-14. .. Respondent/Respondent in all cases
Prayer in CMP.No.13059 of 2025: Petition filed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.No.173829 of 2024.
Prayer in CMP.No.13049 of 2025: Petition filed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.No.173732 of 2024.
Prayer in CMP.No.13056 of 2025: Petition filed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.No.173758 of 2024.
Prayer in TC(A).No.63 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 60 of the
TNVAT Act, 2006 to set aside the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.864 of 2016.
Prayer in TC(Revision).SR.No.173732 of 2024: Petition filed under
Section 60 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.866 of 2016 dated 28.08.2023.
Prayer in TC(Revision).SR.No.173758 of 2024: Petition filed under
Section 60 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.867 of 2016 dated 28.08.2023.
Prayer in TC(Revision).SR.No.173829 of 2024: Petition filed under
Section 60 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.868 of 2016 dated 28.08.2023.
(In all cases)
For Petitioner/ : Mr.C.Harsha Raj
Appellant Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Mahir Chablani and Ms.Disha Jain
COMMON ORDER
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J
We are called upon to condone the delay of 78 days in filing of Tax
Case Revisions, challenging an order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai (in short ‘STAT’/’Tribunal’) dated 28.08.2023.
2. Mr.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader,
appearing for the Commercial Taxes Department, refers to the averments in affidavit dated 29.11.2024 that reads as follows:-
“3. I submit that the above Tax Case Revision is filed against the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in STA Nos. 868, 866 & 867 of 2016 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main) Bench, Chennai – 104.
The order was forwarded to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for perusal and consideration and thereafter, file was sent for obtaining legal opinion from the Special Government Pleader (Taxes). The
Memorandum of Grounds of Tax Case Revision was prepared and made ready and sent to the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for approval and the case papers were made ready and filed.
4.I respectfully submit that the above Tax Case Revision ought to have filed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order was made ready and the same expired on 14.02.2024. But filed on 08.5.2024. Hence, there is a delay of 78 days resulted in filing the above Tax Case Revision.
5.I respectfully submit that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to administrative process.
6.I submit that the Petitioner/State has a good case on merit and the Memorandum of Grounds of Tax Case Revision may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit for appreciation of the merits involved in the case.
7.I respectfully submit that the Petitioner is having a fair chance of succeeding in the above Tax Case Revision.
8.I respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Court that if the delay in filing this Tax Case Revision is not condoned, serious prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 78 days in filing this Tax Case Revision.
In view of the foregoing reasons, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.Nos.173829,
173732 & 173758 of 2024 and thus render justice,”
3. We expressed dissatisfaction with the reasoning adduced and the petitioner thus sought some more time to file a better affidavit.
4. Thereafter, an additional affidavit dated 28.07.2025 has since been filed, the relevant part of which reads as follow:-
‘………..
2. I submit that the above Tax Case Revision is filed against the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in STA.No.867 of 2016 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai. The order was forwarded to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for perusal and consideration. Thereafter, the Memorandum of Grounds of Tax Case Revision was prepared and made ready and sent to the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for approval and the case papers were made ready and filed.
The dates and events for the delay in filing the Tax case Revision is as detailed below:-
S.No. Date Details
1 14.11.2023 The order of the TNSTAT (MB), Chennai received by the Joint Commissioner(ST), Chennai (South) Division in STA.No.867 of 2016.
2 30.11.2023 A review report has been sent by the State Representative from
Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai-5, for perusal of further appeal on the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (MB), Chennai.
3 14.12.2023 Review report of the State Representative/STAT received by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai (South) Division.
4 02.01.2023 The post of Deputy Commissioner (ST), (Legal), Chennai (South) was vacant from 01.12.2023 to 01.01.2024 and taken care by FAC arrangements Regular Deputy
Commissioner(ST), (Legal) has joined duty on 02.01.2024.
5 19.01.2024 The post of Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai (South) was vacant from 05.10.2023 to 18.01.2024 and taken care by FAC arrangements. Regular Joint Commissioner (ST) has joined duty on 19.01.2024.
6 07.03.2024 A review report sent by the Petitioner to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai.
7 03.04.2024 Tax case sanction order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai vide Letter no.RA7/5608002/2023, dated 03.04.2024.
8 10.04.2024 Tax case sanction order received by the Joint
Commissioner(ST), Chennai (South) Division.
9 29.04.2024 Papers relating to filing of Original Tax Case Revision has been sent to SGP (Taxes) Office by the Petitioner after receipt of the sanction order for filing.
10 08.05.2024 Original Tax Case Revision filed through online by the SGP (Taxes) Office.
3.It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the Tax case Revision is neither wilful nor wanton, except the bonafide reasons explained above. The Petitioner have substantial merits in the case, and the delay is purely a procedural lapse as a result of administrative reasons. Therefore, I crave the leave of this Hon’ble Court to condone the delay. By condoning the delay, the meritorious matter would not be dismissed at the threshold. In view of the seminal issue involved in this case, it is prayed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision Petition. It is humbly submitted that failure to condone the delay would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the Appellant state.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax case Revision and thus render justice.’
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the State would seek condonation of the delay of 78 days relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Others . Learned Special Government Pleader would also point out that an identical petition to condone delay was filed in C.M.P.No. 919 of 2025 in T.C.Sr.No.163351 of 2024, delay was condoned on 05.06.2025 and the appeal numbered as T.C.No.63 of 2025 listed today for hearing.
6. Straight away, we may state that the aforesaid position would not come to the aid of the Department. That delay was condoned on the erroneous basis that it relates to re-presentation of the appeal and without notice having been issued to respondent. In fact, we had taken note of that position vide order dated 23.07.2025 as well, and it is that tax case which has been numbered and listed as Tax Case No.63 of 2025 before us today.
7. Per contra, Mr. Mahir Chablani, submits that sufficient cause has to be made out by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay. The State does not stand on a different footing in matters relating to condonation of delay. The respondent taking a specific argument, contends that the delay in re-presentation ought to be taken as part and parcel of the overall delay in institution of a valid appeal, in the facts of this case. The details relating to the appeals are as follows:
Sl.
No
. Financial
Year STA No Order date TC (SR) No. Date of e-
filing TC Dela y in TC (Day
s) Date of
Grounds/ affidavit Dela y in Repres entat ion (Day
s) Total delay in TC
(Days
)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (7) +
(9)
1. 2009-10 864/2016 28.08.2023 63/2025 08.05.2025 78 29.11.2024 186 264
2 2011-12 866/2016 28.08.2023 173732/2024
(SR) 08.05.2024 78 29.11.2024 186 264
3 2012-13 868/2016 28.08.2023 173829/2024
(SR) 08.05.2024 78 29.11.2024 186 264
4 2013-14 867/2016 28.08.2023 173758/2024
(SR) 08.05.2024 78 29.11.2024 186 264
8. Learned respondent counsel also points out that no
documentary evidences have been filed to support the averments in the affidavit and additional affidavit. Moreover, no justification has been provided for the delay at every stage of appeal vetting and ultimate filing. Hence there is no justification whatsoever for condoning the delay seen in light of the judgments in (i) Postmaster General and Others v. Living
Media India Limited and Another , (ii) H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited v. Nahar Exports Limited and Another3, (iii) Madura
Coats Private Limited, Papavinasam Mills Post, Vikramasingapuram,
Ambasamudram Taluk v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai-600 1044 and S.Malathi Raj and Others v. Union of India,
Represented by the General Manager Southern Railway and Others5
9. We have heard both learned counsel.
10. The parties are more or less ad idem on the dates and events in the matter. In the interests of clarity, we recapitulate the same.
(i) The periods of assessment are 2009-10 (TC 63/2025), 2011–12 (CMP
No.13049/2025) 2012–13 (CMP No.13059/2025) and 2013–14 (CMP No.13056/2025).
(ii) The appeals had been filed at the instance of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tribunal disposed the matters by way of common order dated 28.08.2023.
(iii) We find a stark difference between the sequence of
events/justification as set out in the original affidavit filed by the State and the events set out in the additional affidavit, extracted in paragraphs Nos.2 and 4 (supra).
3 (2015) 1 SCC 680
4 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 8983
5 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 15945
(iv) As far as the original affidavit is concerned, it is cryptic and general in nature. The only reasoning adduced was that the papers were sent for obtaining legal opinion from Special Government Pleader (Taxes), the tax case prepared and sent to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for approval and the appeal made ready thereafter and filed. Hence the reasons are administrative in nature.
(v) Coming to the additional affidavit, we find the reasons different when examining the dates and events from 14.11.2023 onwards till 08.05.2024 when the Tax Case Revision has been filed online.
(vi) The order of the STAT has been received on 14.11.2023 and a
Revision by the High Court is provided, on a question of law, under Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, the relevant portions of which, read as follows:
60. Revision by the High Court
(1) Within ninety days from the date on which the order under sub-sections (4), (5) or (7) of section 58 is served, any person who objects to such order or the Joint Commissioner may prefer a petition to the High Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law:
Provided that the High Court may, within a further period of ninety days, admit a petition preferred after the expiration of the first mentioned period of ninety days aforesaid if it is satisfied, that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the first mentioned period.
(2) The petition shall be in the prescribed form, shall be verified in the prescribed manner, and shall, where it is preferred by any party other than the Joint Commissioner, be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.
(3) If the High Court, on perusing the petition, considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the petition summarily:
Provided that no petition shall be dismissed unless the petitioner has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
11. The tax reference thus, ought to have been filed within a period of 90 days i.e., on or before 13.01.2024, or within a further period of 90 days for which condonation may be sought if sufficient cause was made out, which period expires on 12.02.2024. The appeal was filed on 08.05.2024 with a delay of 78 days.
12. However, the matter does not stop there. We had called for the appeal that was filed online and find that it is only a ‘dummy appeal’. We have borrowed the aforesaid phrase from several of the condonation petitions filed by the Commercial taxes Department to describe an appeal filed to overcome limitation. This is not a valid appeal. The grounds are general and there are no questions of law framed. At least such an appeal can have been filed within the period of limitation and not delayed by 78 days as in the present case.
13. The grounds filed originally are extracted below:-
1.The order of the Tribunal is against law and facts.
2. The Tribunal did not consider the case in the proper perspective.
3.The Tribunal had decided the case without going into the merits of the case which is bad in law.
4.The Tribunal erred in interfering with the order of the assessing authority and first Appellate Authority which is not correct.
5.The order of the Tribunal without offering any findings is not maintainable.
6.The above grounds are put forth among other grounds to be furnished during the time of hearing of the Tax Case.
7.In any event, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law.
14. The appeal is not in the prescribed format (Form EE of the Forms), in that, no statement of facts had been appended and no
substantial questions of law raised.
15. The dummy appeal came to be returned, as intended, and it took the Revenue a further period of 186 days to re-present the appeal. The petition for re-presentation unfortunately came to allowed in a routine manner. The grounds ultimately taken in the appeal filed thereafter varied completely when compared with the appeal filed earlier. It is clear that the authorities applied their mind to the grounds only at that juncture. The grounds raised in the re-presented appeals read as follows:-
i. It is provided under Section 27(3) that,
“In making as assessment under clause (a) of sub-
section (1), assessing authority may, if it is satisfied that the escape from the assessment is due to willful non-disclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer, to pay, in addition to the tax assessed under clause (a) of sub-section (1), by way of penalty a sum which shall be :- a) fifty per cent of the tax due on the turnover that was willfully not disclosed of the tax due on such turnover is not more than ten percent of the tax paid as per the return….”
ii. The above clause clearly indicates that the penalty shall be levied in addition to the tax due on the turnover escaped from assessment without any conditions attached to it. The Assessing Officer does not have the discretion to decide on the levy of penalty under section 27(3). Hence, the Order of the Appellate Tribunal is not acceptable and the Order of the Assessing Authority in levying tax and penalty is sustainable.
iii. The Order of the Tribunal is not acceptable as per the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Vijay Steels Vs State of TamilNadu in TCR No. 50/2015, dated. 03.02.2016 where in it was held that,“15. That taxes us to the next question as to whether there was wilful non-disclosure. The very fact that the above fact come to light during an inspection conducted by the enforcement wing speaks for itself. When something is res ipsa loquitur the Assessing Authority cannot come to a different conclusion”.
iv.The Appellate Authority has failed to note that the tax paid by the dealers is not a voluntary one as per the observations of the TNSTAT(AB), Coimbatore, dated.15.05.2014 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs
Andavar Traders, Kangeyam-1, wherein the TNSTAT(AB) has observed that the payment of tax due before the completion of assessment by the dealers cannot be said to be an honest and voluntary action. This will not absolve the dealers.
.
V. Further, Sub-section 27(1 )(a) of Section 27 read as. “where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of the sub-section (3), at the time within a period of five years from the date of assessment order by the assessing authority, determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary.”
vi. Thus being a quasi-judicial authority, an assessing officer can rely on his own observation relates to the accounts of the dealer or the observation of the inspection officers, who are also quasi-judicial authorities proposing their observation, in assessing a dealer. This is validated in the words for any reason. Such a penalty is provided under the Act only to meet out the incorrect or incomplete declaration of tax dues under the self-assessment/deemed assessment scenario. Moreover, dealers have accepted the suppression of taxable turnover and paid the balance tax due.
vii. Thus even after the suppression is proved beyond doubt, which has not been disputed and was also accepted by the dealers, the Appellate Authority has deleted the penalty which is not sustainable in law.
viii. Hence the suppression of turnover willfully not disclosed by the dealer, warrants penalty and this view is also upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, Chennai in the case of Navagraha Gas Agencies in STA Nos. 138 and 139 of 2013, dated :
28.02.2014
ix. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh Vs. H.M.Esufali reported in (1973) 2 SCC 137 [‘H.M.Esufali principle’ for the sake of brevity] equivalent being 33 STC 42, had held that “in best judgment assessment methods, some amount of approximation is inevitable and the estimate of taxable turnover under the ‘State Act and the ‘Central Act’ made by the assessing authority for the period from November 1, 1959 to October 20, 1960 on the basis of Rs. 31,171.28 as the escaped turnover for a period of 19 days was legal and justified and consequently the penalty of Rs. 2,000/imposed on the assessee was in accordance with law. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that as long as the estimate made by the Assessing Officer is not arbitrary, the same cannot be questioned. In this case the Hon’ble tribunal have held that “in the case of E.M.Eusafali, as relied on by the relates to levy of estimation of turnover and resultant penalty in circumstances in which there was specific suppression for a particular period. But in this case there was no such situation. Hence we are of the view that there is no square application here with reference to the above decision”. But the dealer have accepted and remitted the tax for the difference turnover, assessed by the assessing officer and thus the difference turnover assessed by the assessing officer itself becomes suppressed turnover, which proves the mens rea in the part of the dealer for having for having not declaring the same turnover as per the profit & loss account in their monthly return , for which imposition of penalty u/s 27(3) is warranted.
x. (2008)18 VST 436(SC)- ACTO Vs Bajaj Electricals Ltd – Mens rea is not essential ingredient of offence, penalty is leviable-. “on facts we are satisfied that the said Form in ST 18A though signed, remained incomplete. The details required were never supplied. Hence penalty was correctly levied under Section 78 (5) of the 1994 Act.- The dealer in this case is a registered dealer under TNVAT Act’2006. The dealers themselves ought to have filed their monthly returns, which is a self declaration forms, with proper payment taxes as per the deemed sale value in their profit & loss account, whereas in this case, only after the issuance of assessment orders the dealers have filed related documents and paid the taxes which clearly proves that the dealers have wilfully evaded the department.
xi. (2004) 136 STC 606 (Mad)-S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons Vs. CTO-III, Virudhunagar)- The intention was obvious, namely to postpone the tax legitimately due to the Government or to defraud the Revenue.Their merely filing statement in response to a notice and their paying tax due ultimately after the issue of notice, would not come to their rescue.
xii. The decision of the Court in Vasulal International Vs. Additional STO-II 1st Circle, Kannur & Another (2007) 7 VST 283 (Ker) held that “No need to prove mensrea and no arbitrariness or discrimination in levying penalty”.
xiii. The decision of the Court in SantlalTek Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2005) 142 STC 135 (Punjab) held that “The existence of deliberateness or mensrea is not a sine qua non for imposing penalty”. Relying on the Judgement, as assessing authority had been satisfied that the dealer has maintained incorrect accounts or documents with a view to suppress sales etc, or has concealed the particulars of purchases, which effected with stock variation, the levy of penalty is justified.
xiv. It is also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal hasdismissed the State Appeal by holding up the order of the First Appellate Authority which is arbitrary, ultravires and not sustainable in law. As per the TNVAT Act, 2006 the dealers themselves ought to have filed their monthly returns with proper payment taxes thereon whereas in this case, only after the issuance of assessment orders the dealers have filed related documents and paid the taxes which clearly proves that the dealers have wilfully evaded the department.
xv. The decision of the Court in State of TamilNadu Vs. Indian Silk Traders (1970) 25 STC 211 (SC), it is held that the underlying intent of Penalty is only to deal with the non-disclosure of a turnover which with the obligue purpose of evading liability or postponing the payment of tax lawfully due to the State. Thus the Penalty levied under Section 27(3) for the tax levied under Section 12(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006, which is unearthed and detected is found to be justifiable.
xvi. The decision of the Court in Assam Transport Service & Others Vs. State of Orissa & others (2008) 14 VST 557 (Orissa) that imposition of penalty for failure to perform statutory obligation, is a matter of discretion to be exercised judicially.
xvii. In this case the levy of Penalty is in consonance with the provisions of TNVAT Act, 2006, as the dealer fail to pay the tax u/s 7(1 )(a) of TNVAT Act’2006.
xviii. (2002) 125 STC 107 (Mad) Chennai Textiles chemicals (P) Ltd Vs. state of Tamilnadu & Another- For penalty under section 12(3) (b) of TNGST Act, no discretion given to the authority for considering the element of mens rea.
xix. But both the First Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal have failed to consider the fact and circumstances of the case in hand but simply allowed the case in favour to the dealer which is not justifiable in law.
xx. Thus relying on the above decisions, the orders of Assessing Officer in levying Penalty of Rs. 16,90,570/is in order and sustainable.
The above grounds are put forth among other grounds to be furnished during the time of hearing of the Tax Case.
QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT:-
1. Whether the order of the Learned Tribunal in deleting the Penalty stands vitiated in as much as it fails to take into account the relevant and has taken into account the factors that are wholly irrelevant in deciding whether penalty is warranted in terms of Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act 2006?
2. Whether the Learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the Penalty by affirming the findings of the 1st Appellate Authority which has proceeded to hold that penalty Under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act consequent to the Assessment orders even though there could be suppression in non-disclosing the turnover and paying the tax along with the return?
3. Whether the Learned Tribunal ought to have seen that penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act 2006 gets attracted if there is an escapement of turnover which is due to wilful nondisclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer?
4. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in finding that since the tax due on suppressed turnover has been upheld, levy of penalty is unwarranted, the above finding is contrary to the express provision contained in Section 27(3) which only requires the Assessing Officer to enquire whether there is escapement of turnover due to willful nondisclosure and on being satisfied of the above condition, Penalty would get attracted and the quantum would be in terms of the slab prescribed under Section 27(3) (a to c) of the TNVAT Act 2006.
Prayer: It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order, Dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA No. 868/2016 and thus render justice.
16. We have burdened this order with the voluminous grounds raised by the State merely to illustrate the fact that the appeal originally filed was a mere template used solely to get over the bar of limitation or curtail the same.
17. In our opinion, the appeal filed online on 08.04.2024 is not a valid appeal. The reasons ascribed in the second affidavit do not merit consideration as they only indicate administrative delay. Even the reason in relation to vacancy in not acceptable as there was an officer in charge and in any event, the regular officer was appointed even within the date by which limitation expired. We have had occasion to consider the dummy filings of the Department earlier, and in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in T.C.SR.No.48795 of 2006 dated 09.07.2025 (State of Tamil Nadu V.
V.R.S.Jewellery) and in order dated 09.07.2025, have held as follows:
2. The Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the Tax Case. The additional affidavit dated 07.07.2025, filed by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Thiruvarur Division, which contains the following tabulation:
S.No. Date Details
1. 29.05.2002 The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order in STA.No.1382 of 2000
2. 21.08.2002 The order of the TNSTAT (MB), Chennai received by the Petitioner/Appellant
3. 16.09.2002 A review report may be recorded to the STAT order by the Deputy Commissioner (CT)/State Representative, STAT, Chennai.
4. 11.10.2002 Review report of the Deputy
Commissioner(CT)/State Representative,
STAT, Chennai received by the
Petitioner/Appellant
5. 27.12.2002 A review report sent to the CCT, Chennai by the Petitioner/Appellant
6. 17.02.2003 Tax case dummy filed by the Petitioner/Appellant
7. 11.06.2003 Tax case sanction order passed by the Joint Commissioner (RP), Office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Com-
mercial Taxes, Chennai vide
Proc.No.K1/60775/2002, dt 11.06.2003.
8. 30.07.2003 Tax case sanction order received by the Petitioner/Appellant.
9. 21.03.2005 Tax case Revision Petition along with Delay Condonation Petition and Affidavit filed by the Petitioner/Appellant
10. 11.06.2025 Newspaper Publication ordered by the Hon’b’e
High Court of Madras in T.C.SR.No.48795/2006 and CMP
No.12015/2025.
11. 21.06.2025 Summon notice published in Tamil newspaper Dinamani & English Newspaper The New In-
S.No. Date Details
dian Express
3. The order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘STAT’/’Tribunal’) is dated 29.05.2002, received by the petitioner on 21.08.2002. Hence, the tax case ought to have been filed on 20.11.2002. On 16.09.2002, a review report was sought for, received on
11.10.2002 and has been sent to CCT, Chennai on 27.12.2002. At serial number 6, the officer says ‘Tax case dummy’ was filed on 17.02.2003. We do not approve of filing of tax case dummy which indicates that mere draft grounds were filed. Even this has been filed beyond limitation. The sanction order of the Joint Commissioner dated 11.06.2003 was received by the State on 30.07.2003.
4. However, the tax case along with a delay condonation petition has been filed only on 21.03.2005 with a delay of nearly 2 years. In fact, a valid appeal should be filed in the required form containing the grounds of appeal and substantial questions. It appears that the interim delay for re-presentation of the appeal has also been condoned by this Court.
5. We do not find any justification for the delay of 90 days between 20.11.2002 and 17.02.2003. According to the petitioner, the interim period has been spent only on receiving the review report and on 17.02.2003, admittedly, what has been filed is only a tax case dummy.
6. We are unable to appreciate why a proper tax case could not have been filed even at that point in time which was itself beyond the period of limitation. In any event, there is no whisper of justification as to why the delay had transpired between 20.11.2002 and 17.02.2003 when the appeal has been filed as a dummy tax case.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the delay condonation petition is dismissed and so too the tax case in the SR stage. No costs.
18. In the aforesaid circumstances, we agree with the respondent that no sufficient cause has been made out by the State to justify the delay in filing. In fact, the appeal has been drafted only during the period of 186 days when the papers were returned by the Registry. We are hence not inclined to condone the delay and draw support from the following judgments.
19. In the case of Postmaster General , the Supreme Court was concerned with delay of 427 days in filing Special Leave Petitions by the Post Master General. After referring to the judgments in CWT v Amateur Riders Club and Pundlik Jalam Patil v Jalgaon Medium Project , the delay condonation petition came to be dismissed and the observations in paragraph 29 would apply on all fours to the present matter:-
“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”
20. The Revenue has relied on a judgment of three Hon’ble
Judges of the Supreme Court in Chandra Mani . That judgment was of 1996 vintage and it is true that the Court has said that the State does not deserve a litigant non grata status and that the Court should adopt a justice oriented approach in dealing with applications for condonation of delay. The delay of one year was condoned.
21. The Court took note of the judgement in G.Ramegowda, Major v Spl. Land Acquisition Officer , where the Court held that the factors that are peculiar and characteristic of the functioning of the Government should be taken note of, to assess what would constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act qua the State.
22. The Bench also took notice of the judgment of three
Hon’ble Judges in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd v
Union of India , holding that the bonafides of parties would have to be tested as a material factor in resolving the question of condonation of delay. The judgment in Chandra Mani has been taken note of in
Postmaster General’s case.
23. Evidently, there has been a paradigm shift in the thinking of the Court between 1996 and 2012 and it is only after due consideration of the observations in Chandra Mani that the judgment in Postmaster
General came to be. Fast forward to today when the Supreme Court in
School Education Department & Others vs. Sarita Mishra & Another (Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary No(s). 24926/2023, dated 28.11.2023) has dismissed a petition seeking condonation of 283 days delay with costs, holding as follows:-
“The special leave petition has been filed with a delay of 283 days in filing and 121 days in refiling the special leave petition against an order dismissing a Writ Appeal filed after delay of 994 days: so much for the efficiency of the department!
We have categorized all such cases as “certificate cases”. The objective is to see that the department washes its hands off for its non performance to obtain dismissal from this Court.
We fail to appreciate such a scenario. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563.
Looking to the delay not only before the High Court and further delay before us, we dismiss the special leave petition as time barred with a costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Group ‘C’ (Non-Clerical) Employees Welfare Association.”
We are bound to take note of the march of the law in this regard.
25. That apart, we have to have to take judicial note of the routine and regular filing of dummy appeals to attempt to defeat limitation. This is not a solitary instance, and in many cases, even the dummy appeals are filed beyond the period of limitation.
26. In light of the discussion above, C.M.P.Nos. 13059, 13056 & 13049 of 2025 are dismissed, as also the Tax Case Revisions, in SR stage.
27. Coming to Tax Case No. 63 of 2025, we had recorded in our order dated 23.07.2025 that C.M.P.No.919 of 2025 relating to T.C.SR.No.163351 of 2024, had been allowed on the erroneous premise that the delay related to re-presentation, and hence, without notice to the other side. Hence we recall order dated 05.06.2025 and direct the Registry to list C.M.P.No.919 of 2025 for hearing afresh. There shall be no order as to costs.
[A.S.M., J] [N.S., J]
17.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm
To
The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai – 104.
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.
ssm
CMP.Nos.13059, 13056 & 13049 of 2025 in TC.SR.Nos.173732, 173758 & 173829 of 2024 and and T.C.No.63 of 2025
17. 11.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 28.08.2025 Pronounced on 17.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
CMP.Nos.13049, 13056 & 13059 of 2025 in
TC.Sr.Nos.173758, 173732 & 173829 of 2024 and
T.C.No.63 of 2025
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by
The Joint Commissioner (CT)
Chennai (East) Division,
Chennai – 600 006 .. Petitioner/Appellant in all cases
Vs
SPI Cinemas Private Limited,
No.25, Mamatha Complex,
Whites Road,
Royapettah,
Chennai-14. .. Respondent/Respondent in all cases
Prayer in CMP.No.13049 of 2025: Petition filed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.No.173732 of 2024.
Prayer in CMP.No.13056 of 2025: Petition filed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.No.173758 of 2024.
Prayer in CMP.No.13059 of 2025: Petition filed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.No.173829 of 2024.
Prayer in TC(R).No.63 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 60 of the
TNVAT Act, 2006 to set aside the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.864 of 2016.
Prayer in TC(Revision).SR.No.173732 of 2024: Petition filed under Section 60 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to set aside the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.866 of 2016.
Prayer in TC(Revision).SR.No.173758 of 2024: Petition filed under Section 60 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to set aside the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.867 of 2016.
Prayer in TC(Revision).SR.No.173829 of 2024: Petition filed under Section 60 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to set aside the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA.No.868 of 2016.
For Petitioner/ : Mr.C.Harsha Raj
Appellant Special Government Pleader
(In all cases)
For Respondent : Mr.Mahir Chablani
and Ms.Disha Jain
(In all cases)
COMMON ORDER
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
CMP.Nos.13049 of 2025, 13056 of 2025 & 13059 of 2025 have been filed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision S.R.Nos.173732 of 2024, 173758 of 2024 & 173829 of 2024, respectively.
2.The petitioner has filed the present applications to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the revision petitions, by citing administrative reasons for the delay.
3.When the above petitions were listed for hearing, this Court was not satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the delay petitions. Therefore, better affidavits were filed by the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the additional affidavit and contended that as the post of Deputy Commissioner (ST), (Legal) Chennai (South) was vacant from 01.12.2023 to 01.01.2024 and the post of Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai (South) was vacant from 05.10.2023 to 18.01.2024, the aforesaid delay occurred in filing the above
Revision Petitions.
5.The respondent has filed a counter affidavits and contended that the delay petitions filed by the petitioner is completely devoid of merits and extremely vague and there are no sufficient cause for not filing the Revisions within the prescribed period of limitation. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has cited a chain of bureaucratic reasons and the same cannot be accepted as valid reasons for condoning the delay. He further contended that an inordinate delay of 205 days in re-presenting, when viewed in conjunction with the initial delay in filing the Revision Petitions clearly warrants judicial scrutiny and prayed for dismissal of the above petitions.
6.I had an opportunity to read the illustrative judgment of my Sister Hon’ble Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth and I respectfully differ with certain portions of the judgment. While the period of limitation to file a revision before the High Court is 90 days from the date of the impugned order, in the present case, the limitation period expired on 13.01.2024. If a revision is filed beyond this prescribed period, the Court may condone the delay upon being satisfied with the reasons shown.
7.On facts, the revision petitions were filed on 08.05.2024, with a delay of 78 days. The Registry returned the papers for rectifying certain defects. Consequently, the revision was re-presented after compliance, but with a further delay of 182 days in T.C.Sr.No.173732 of 2024 and T.C.Sr.No.173758 of 2024 and 186 days in T.C.Sr.No.173829 of 2024.
The petitioner has preferred the revision petitions on certain routine and repetitive grounds commonly raised by the Department. At the time of filing such revision petitions, the department has not narrated the entire facts and reasons and has filed the revision petitions primarily to save limitation. Such a practice is being adopted not only by the governmental departments but also the private litigants. Once the matter is filed, the defects pointed out by the Registry are later rectified by filing a more detailed affidavit or better statement to strengthen their case.
8.It would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563. The law laid down therein governs the principles for condonation of delay, whether sought by the Government or by an individual litigant aggrieved by an order. The Court must examine the sufficiency of the reasons assigned and the diligence exercised to minimize delay. It is appropriate to take note of the additional affidavit dated 28.07.2025 filed by the petitioner, which reads as follow:-
“ 2. I submit that the above Tax Case Revision is filed against the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in STA.No.867 of 2016 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai. The order was forwarded to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for perusal and consideration. Thereafter, the Memorandum of Grounds of Tax Case Revision was prepared and made ready and sent to the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for approval and the case papers were made ready and filed.
The dates and events for the delay in filing the Tax case Revision is as detailed below:-
S. No . Date Details
1 14.11.2023 The order of the TNSTAT (MB), Chennai received by the Joint Commissioner(ST), Chennai (South) Division in STA.No.867 of 2016.
2 30.11.2023 A review report has been sent by the State
Representative from Tamil Nadu Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai-5, for perusal of further appeal on the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (MB), Chennai.
3 14.12.2023 Review report of the State Representative/STAT received by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai (South) Division.
4 02.01.2023 The post of Deputy Commissioner (ST), (Legal), Chennai (South) was vacant from 01.12.2023 to
01.01.2024 and taken care by FAC arrangements Regular Deputy Commissioner(ST), (Legal) has joined duty on 02.01.2024.
5 19.01.2024 The post of Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai (South) was vacant from 05.10.2023 to 18.01.2024 and taken care by FAC arrangements. Regular Joint Commissioner (ST) has joined duty on 19.01.2024.
6 07.03.2024 A review report sent by the Petitioner to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai.
7 03.04.2024 Tax case sanction order passed by the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai vide Letter no.RA7/5608002/2023, dated 03.04.2024.
8 10.04.2024 Tax case sanction order received by the Joint Commissioner(ST), Chennai (South) Division.
S. No . Date Details
9 29.04.2024 Papers relating to filing of Original Tax Case Revision has been sent to SGP (Taxes) Office by the Petitioner after receipt of the sanction order for filing.
10 08.05.2024 Original Tax Case Revision filed through online by the SGP (Taxes) Office.
3.It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the Tax case Revision is neither wilful nor wanton, except the bonafide reasons explained above. The Petitioner have substantial merits in the case, and the delay is purely a procedural lapse as a result of administrative reasons. Therefore, I crave the leave of this Hon’ble Court to condone the delay. By condoning the delay, the meritorious matter would not be dismissed at the threshold. In view of the seminal issue involved in this case, it is prayed to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax Case Revision Petition. It is humbly submitted that failure to condone the delay would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the Appellant state.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the Tax case Revision and thus render justice.”
It is also appropriate to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the revision, which read as follows:
i.It is provided under Section 27(3) that,
“In making as assessment under clause (a) of sub-section (1), assessing authority may, if it is satisfied that the escape from the assessment is due to willful non-disclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer, to pay, in addition to the tax assessed under clause (a) of sub-section (1), by way of penalty a sum which shall be :- a) fifty per cent of the tax due on the turnover that was willfully not disclosed of the tax due on such turnover is not more than ten percent of the tax paid as per the return….”
ii. The above clause clearly indicates that the penalty shall be levied in addition to the tax due on the turnover escaped from assessment without any conditions attached to it. The Assessing Officer does not have the discretion to decide on the levy of penalty under section 27(3). Hence, the Order of the Appellate Tribunal is not acceptable and the Order of the Assessing Authority in levying tax and penalty is sustainable.
iii. The Order of the Tribunal is not acceptable as per the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Vijay Steels Vs State of TamilNadu in TCR No. 50/2015, dated. 03.02.2016 where in it was held that,“15. That taxes us to the next question as to whether there was wilful non-disclosure. The very fact that the above fact come to light during an inspection conducted by the enforcement wing speaks for itself. When something is res ipsa loquitur the Assessing Authority cannot come to a different conclusion”.
iv.The Appellate Authority has failed to note that the tax paid by the dealers is not a voluntary one as per the observations of the TNSTAT(AB), Coimbatore, dated.15.05.2014 in the case of State of
Tamil Nadu Vs Andavar Traders, Kangeyam-1, wherein the TNSTAT(AB) has observed that the payment of tax due before the completion of assessment by the dealers cannot be said to be an honest and voluntary action. This will not absolve the dealers.
V. Further, Sub-section 27(1 )(a) of Section 27 read as.
“where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of the sub-section (3), at the time within a period of five years from the date of assessment order by the assessing authority, determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary.”
vi. Thus being a quasi-judicial authority, an assessing officer can rely on his own observation relates to the accounts of the dealer or the observation of the inspection officers, who are also quasi-judicial authorities proposing their observation, in assessing a dealer. This is validated in the words for any reason. Such a penalty is provided under the Act only to meet out the incorrect or incomplete declaration of tax dues under the self-assessment/deemed assessment scenario. Moreover, dealers have accepted the suppression of taxable turnover and paid the balance tax due.
vii. Thus even after the suppression is proved beyond doubt, which has not been disputed and was also accepted by the dealers, the Appellate Authority has deleted the penalty which is not sustainable in law.
viii. Hence the suppression of turnover willfully not disclosed by the dealer, warrants penalty and this view is also upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, Chennai in the case of Navagraha Gas Agencies in STA Nos. 138 and 139 of 2013, dated : 28.02.2014
ix. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh Vs. H.M.Esufali reported in (1973) 2 SCC 137 [‘H.M.Esufali principle’ for the sake of brevity] equivalent being 33 STC 42, had held that “in best judgment assessment methods, some amount of approximation is inevitable and the estimate of taxable turnover under the ‘State Act’ and the ‘Central Act’ made by the assessing authority for the period from November 1, 1959 to October 20, 1960 on the basis of Rs.31,171.28 as the escaped turnover for a period of 19 days was legal and justified and consequently the penalty of Rs.2,000/imposed on the assessee was in accordance with law. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that as long as the estimate made by the Assessing Officer is not arbitrary, the same cannot be questioned. In this case the Hon’ble tribunal have held that “in the case of E.M.Eusafali, as relied on by the relates to levy of estimation of turnover and resultant penalty in circumstances in which there was specific suppression for a particular period. But in this case there was no such situation. Hence we are of the view that there is no square application here with reference to the above decision”. But the dealer have accepted and remitted the tax for the difference turnover, assessed by the assessing officer and thus the difference turnover assessed by the assessing officer itself becomes suppressed turnover, which proves the mens rea in the part of the dealer for having for having not declaring the same turnover as per the profit & loss account in their monthly return , for which imposition of penalty u/s 27(3) is warranted.
x. (2008)18 VST 436(SC)- ACTO Vs Bajaj Electricals Ltd – Mens rea is not essential ingredient of offence, penalty is leviable-. “on facts we are satisfied that the said Form in ST 18A though signed, remained incomplete. The details required were never supplied. Hence penalty was correctly levied under Section 78 (5) of the 1994 Act.- The dealer in this case is a registered dealer under TNVAT Act’2006. The dealers themselves ought to have filed their monthly returns, which is a self declaration forms, with proper payment taxes as per the deemed sale value in their profit & loss account, whereas in this case, only after the issuance of assessment orders the dealers have filed related documents and paid the taxes which clearly proves that the dealers have wilfully evaded the department.
xi. (2004) 136 STC 606 (Mad)-S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons Vs. CTO-III, Virudhunagar)- The intention was obvious, namely to postpone the tax legitimately due to the Government or to defraud the Revenue.Their merely filing statement in response to a notice and their paying tax due ultimately after the issue of notice, would not come to their rescue.
xii. The decision of the Court in Vasulal International Vs. Additional STO-II 1st Circle, Kannur & Another (2007) 7 VST 283 (Ker) held that “No need to prove mensrea and no arbitrariness or discrimination in levying penalty”.
xiii. The decision of the Court in SantlalTek Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2005) 142 STC 135 (Punjab) held that “The existence of deliberateness or mensrea is not a sine qua non for imposing penalty”. Relying on the Judgement, as assessing authority had been satisfied that the dealer has maintained incorrect accounts or documents with a view to suppress sales etc, or has concealed the particulars of purchases, which effected with stock variation, the levy of penalty is justified.
xiv. It is also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the State Appeal by holding up the order of the First Appellate Authority which is arbitrary, ultravires and not sustainable in law. As per the TNVAT Act, 2006 the dealers themselves ought to have filed their monthly returns with proper payment taxes thereon whereas in this case, only after the issuance of assessment orders the dealers have filed related documents and paid the taxes which clearly proves that the dealers have wilfully evaded the department.
xv. The decision of the Court in State of TamilNadu Vs. Indian Silk Traders (1970) 25 STC 211 (SC), it is held that the underlying intent of Penalty is only to deal with the non-disclosure of a turnover which with the obligue purpose of evading liability or postponing the payment of tax lawfully due to the State. Thus the Penalty levied under Section 27(3) for the tax levied under Section 12(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006, which is unearthed and detected is found to be justifiable.
xvi. The decision of the Court in Assam Transport Service & Others Vs. State of Orissa & others (2008) 14 VST 557 (Orissa) that imposition of penalty for failure to perform statutory obligation, is a matter of discretion to be exercised judicially.
xvii. In this case the levy of Penalty is in consonance with the provisions of TNVAT Act, 2006, as the dealer fail to pay the tax u/s 7(1 )(a) of TNVAT Act’2006.
xviii. (2002) 125 STC 107 (Mad) Chennai Textiles chemicals (P) Ltd Vs. state of Tamilnadu & Another- For penalty under section 12(3) (b) of TNGST Act, no discretion given to the authority for considering the element of mens rea.
xix. But both the First Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal have failed to consider the fact and circumstances of the case in hand but simply allowed the case in favour to the dealer which is not justifiable in law.
xx. Thus relying on the above decisions, the orders of Assessing Officer in levying Penalty of Rs. 16,90,570/-is in order and sustainable.
The above grounds are put forth among other grounds to be furnished during the time of hearing of the Tax Case.
QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE
HIGH COURT:-
1. Whether the order of the Learned Tribunal in deleting the Penalty stands vitiated in as much as it fails to take into account the relevant and has taken into account the factors that are wholly irrelevant in deciding whether penalty is warranted in terms of Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act 2006?
2. Whether the Learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the Penalty by affirming the findings of the 1st Appellate Authority which has proceeded to hold that penalty Under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act consequent to the Assessment orders even though there could be suppression in non-disclosing the turnover and paying the tax along with the return?
3. Whether the Learned Tribunal ought to have seen that penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act 2006 gets attracted if there is an escapement of turnover which is due to wilful nondisclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer?
4. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in finding that since the tax due on suppressed turnover has been upheld, levy of penalty is unwarranted, the above finding is contrary to the express provision contained in Section 27(3) which only requires the Assessing Officer to enquire whether there is escapement of turnover due to willful nondisclosure and on being satisfied of the above condition, Penalty would get attracted and the quantum would be in terms of the slab prescribed under Section 27(3) (a to c) of the TNVAT Act 2006.
Prayer: It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order, Dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in STA No. 868/2016 and thus render justice.”
9.When the aggrieved party is the Government, the Court, must evaluate the reasons assigned, bearing in mind that the appellant, being a governmental machinery, functions to safeguard the rights of citizens and to protect public revenue.
10.In other words, any error, mistake, omission or commission, human error committed by an individual officer occupying a post in the Government and its instrumentalities, which results in delay, may not by itself be a reason to disallow numbering of the revision filed by the State. Such circumstances must be taken into account while considering a petition for condonation of delay.
11.On perusal of the additional affidavit, it is clear that ample reasons were given for the delay. The reasons assigned by the petitioner that the post of Deputy Commissioner (ST), (Legal) Chennai (South) and the post of Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai (South) were vacant for a considerable time, which caused the delay in getting approval for filing the revision petitions, appear to be bonafide and satisfactory. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered by a three Judge Bench reported in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The relevant portion of the judgment cited supra is usefully extracted hereunder:
“11. It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court — be it by private party or the State — are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay — intentional or otherwise — is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural redtape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression “sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-à-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from this perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay.”
12.However, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to issue necessary circulars to all departments, directing that whenever a decision is taken to prefer a revision or appeal against an order, the reasons for any delay should be properly explained with due diligence and reasonableness in the affidavit filed in support of the delay petition instead of seeking an opportunity to file better affidavit when the matter is listed for hearing. That apart, the primary grounds on which the revision/appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants are required to be included in the first instance, instead of including the grounds when the papers are returned by the Registry for rectifying any other defects. Having said so, I am of the view that the disposal of revision/appeal at the stage of condonation of delay should not defeat the cause of justice, as every matter deserves to be examined on its own merits at the stage of admission.
13.Since the petitioner has satisfactorily made out a case for condonation of delay of 78 days delay in filing the revision petitions through the additional affidavits dated 28.07.2025, I am of the view that sufficient cause has been established. Accordingly, C.M.P.Nos.13049,
13056 & 13059 of 2025 are allowed. No costs.
14.In respect of Tax Case No.63 of 2025 and CMP.No.919 of 2025 relating to T.C.Sr.No.163351 of 2024, I respectfully concur with the decision and observations rendered by my Sister Hon’ble Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth.
(N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.)
17.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No sai
To
SPI Cinemas Private Limited,
No.25, Mamatha Complex, Whites Road,
Royapettah, Chennai-14.
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. sai
CMP.Nos.13049, 13056 & 13059 of 2025 in TC.Sr.Nos.173758, 173732 & 173829 of 2024 and T.C.No.63 of 2025
17.11.2025
CMP.Nos.13059, 13056 & 13049 of
2025 in
TC.SR.Nos.173829, 173758 &
173732 of 2024 and
T.C.No.63 of 2025
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
(Order of the Court was made by
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
In light of the cleavage of opinion, Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for necessary orders.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [N.S.J.,]
ta 17.11.2025
