Dismissed¶¶34

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Sree Kalaiyappa Saw Mill

Madras HC27 Nov 2025CMP(MD)/3789/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 50 days delay; tax case revision; State of Tamil Nadu; Joint Commissioner (CT) Madurai Division; Sree Kalaiyappa Saw Mill, Kalayarkoil; Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai; MTSRA No.79/2022; MTSMP No.129/2020; T.C.R.(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023; C.M.P(MD)No.13547 of 2023; supervisory jurisdiction; Esha Bhattacharjee (2013) 12 SCC 649; SLP(C) Diary No.25178/2024; State as litigant; delay petition dismissed; connected TCR SR rejected.

What did the court decide?

The reasons stated in the affidavit for the 50-day delay are not satisfactory, and the Court is not inclined to condone the delay. ¶¶34

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Sree Kalaiyappa Saw Mill — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 50 days in filing the tax case revision against the Tribunal's order dated 27-12-2022 should be condoned. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The reasons stated in the affidavit for the 50-day delay are not satisfactory, and the Court is not inclined to condone the delay.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The condone delay petition is dismissed, and consequently the connected tax case revision T.C.R.(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023 is also rejected.

¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), P. Velmurugan J. (with L. Victoria Gowri J.), 27-11-2025 — CMP(MD)No.3789 of 2025 / T.C.R.(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023: The State (Joint Commissioner (CT), Madurai Division) sought condonation of a 50-day delay in filing a tax case revision against the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai order in MTSRA No.79/2022 in MTSMP No.129/2020 dated 27-12-2022, so as to set aside that order and restore the appeal for disposal on merits. The delay was attributed to the time taken in obtaining approval from the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai. The Court noted that in an identical matter it had already dismissed a similar condonation application (C.M.P(MD)No.13547 of 2023, dismissed 03.01.2024) — whose dismissal, as submitted by the respondent's counsel, was carried into the Supreme Court by the Department via Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).25178/2024 and there dismissed. Holding the affidavit reasons insufficient, the Court dismissed the condonation petition and rejected the connected T.C.R.(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023. The quoted extract of the earlier order records the identical matter's history (assessment order dated 15.06.2018; Tribunal dismissal 03.09.2021; Review Application MTSRA.No.44 of 2022 dismissed 28.02.2023) and the reliance placed on Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649.

¶1

CMP(MD) NO. 3789 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27-11-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶4

CMP(MD) NO. 3789 of 2025 and T.C.R.(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023

¶5

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Joint Commissioner (CT) Madurai Division Madurai.

¶6

Petitioner(s)

¶7

¶8

Sree Kalaiyappa Saw Mill Kalayarkoil

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

For Petitioner(s):

¶11

Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶12

For Respondent(s):

¶13

Mr.S.Karunakar

¶14

Prayer in C.M.P(MD)No.3789 of 2025: To condone the delay of 50 days in filing this tax case revision against the order made in MTSRA No.79/2022 in MTSMP No. 129/2020 dated 27-12-2022 before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai and pass such further orders which deem so fit to the case and thus render justice.

¶15

Prayer in T.C.R(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023: To set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in MTSRA No.79 of 2022 in MTSMP No.129 f 2020, dated 27.12.2022 and to restore the appeal before the Tribunal for disposing on merits.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN J. )

¶19

This application has been filed to condone the delay of 50 days in filing this

¶20

tax case revision.

¶21

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would submit that due to getting approval to file Tax Case Revision from the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai the delay is occurred.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in an identical issue, this Court has dismissed the condone delay application and the same was challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).25178/2024 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶23

It is seen from the records that in an identical matter, earlier the petitioner filed an application in C.M.P(MD)No.13547 of 2023 for condoning delay in filing the Tax Case Revision and the same was dismissed by this Court on 03.01.2024. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-

¶24

"2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/State relied upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, wherein, the Supreme Court,

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

while considering an application for condonation of delay, has stated as below:

¶27

“The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

¶28

3. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the issue of tax evasion to a tune of Rs.11,00,000/-, which is the subject matter of this petition, was not properly considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the Review Application was preferred. However, the said Review Application was dismissed without proper consideration of the facts and hence, the State intends to prefer a Tax Case Revision before the High Court under the supervisory jurisdiction, but there is a delay of 86 days, which needs to be condoned in view of the observation and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above.

¶29

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly opposed the condone delay petition on the ground that it is not a mere delay of 86 days in preferring the tax case. In fact, the assessment order, which came to be challenged before the appellate authority, was disposed as early as on 15.06.2018. Thereafter, the State preferred appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2021. The State, instead of preferring further appeal before the High Court, thought it fit to file a Review Application and the said Review Application in MTSRA.No.44 of 2022 came to be dismissed on 28.02.2023. Against that order, T.C.R.(MD)SR.No. 71072 of 2023 is filed along with a condone delay petition, which

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

has now been taken up for consideration.

¶32

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not a mere delay of 86 days in filing the tax case, wherein, the Court can give some acceptable latitude for condonation of delay. The genesis of the matter starts with the assessment order of the year 2015-16 dated 15.06.2018. A vigilant litigant cannot take his own time and approach the forum, just because they represent the State and the State involved is State Revenue. Like any other litigant, the State also has some responsibility and cannot knock the doors of justice as and when they like. Hence, this petition for condonation of delay is dismissed as no sufficient cause is stated for the delay. Consequently, T.C.R. (MD).SR.No.71072 of 2023 is rejected.

¶33

Therefore, in this case also originally the applicant filed an appeal and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the application for condoning the delay in filing the Tax Case Revision.

¶34

Therefore, the reasons stated in the affidavit is not satisfied, hence, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected TCR(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023 is also rejected.

¶35

(P.VELMURUGAN J.) (L.VICTORIA GOWRI J.) 27-11-2025

¶36

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

P.VELMURUGAN,J. AND L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.

¶39

¶40

CMP(MD) NO. 3789 of 2025 and T.C.R.(MD)SR.No.49017 of 2023

¶41

27.11.2025