JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This, is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri, dated 17.9.1969, as affirmed by the Additional Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, dated 29-4.1971. 2. Petitioner, a Firm, is a Sanitary Contractor. Notice was issued to the Firm u/s 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred to as the "Act") by the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Circle at Angul, on the basis that it had taxable liability under the Act and yet had not got itself registered required thereunder. Petitioner disputed its liability but by order dated 31st March, 1969, the Sales Tax Officer made an assessment u/s 12(5) of the Act for the year 1965-66 and raised a demand (sic) tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 5,252.79 paise. Petitioner, preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. Puri, but had affixed Court-fee worth Re. 1/- in the memorandum of appeal while admittedly the Court-fee of Rs. 100/- was payable. By letter dated 1st of September, 1969, the appellate authority called upon Petitioner to make good the deficit Court-fee of Rs. 99/- on or before 16.9.1969. Petitioner received the notice on 2.9.1969. but did not respond by the appointed date. Accordingly on 17.9.1969. the appellate authority dismissed the appeal summarily as being defective in terms of Rule 49 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. Thereupon Petitioner carried an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal u/s 23(3)(a) of the Act. As a fact, it may now be stated that Petitioner had transmitted the deficit Court-fee by registered post on 16-9-1969 from Cuttack and the same was received in the office of the. appellate authority on 18.9.1969, two days beyond the date fixed in the direction and one day too late because on the earlier day, the order of dismissal had been passed. The Additional Member stated: ...Obviously the Appellant had not paid the deficit Court fees on the date fixed for which he received the notice. Merely posting a petition on the date fixed addressed to the Assistant Commissioner is not tantamount to paying Court-fees on the very date. Referring to the appeal records produced by the Additional State Representative it is seen that the Petitioner enclosing therewith the deficit Court-fees reached the Assistant Commissioner on 18.9.1969 and as such after the impugned order had been passed. Referring to the appeal records produced by the Additional State Representative it is seen that the Petitioner enclosing therewith the deficit Court-fees reached the Assistant Commissioner on 18.9.1969 and as such after the impugned order had been passed. In the circumstances, when the deficit Court-fees had not been paid the order of the Assistant Commissioner in dismissing the appeal before him cannot in any way be styled as incorrect or improper. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal of the appeal, Petitioner had carried a reference to this Court in S.J.C. No. 161 of 1972, rut ultimately did not press the same and made this application. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Department. 4. During hearing of the application, two contentions have been pressed by Mr. Misra for Petitioner: (1) The order of assessment being u/s 12(5) of the Act, it was absolutely necessary for the assessing officer to determine the commencement of liability. Jurisdiction to assess a dealer depends upon the determination of liability and that having not been done, the entire order of assessment is open to be thrown out. (2) The judicial discretion vested in the appellate Tribunal has not been appropriately exercised in as much as the appellate authority should have taken into account the fact that on the very day fixed for compliance, the deficit Court-fee had been tendered to the post office for onward transmission to the appellate authority. 5. Let us examine the second contention first. We do not think, there is any merit in such a contention. As indicated in the order of the first appellate authority, the notice requiring the Assessee to pay the deficit Court-fee was received as early as 2nd September, 1969. Two weeks time was still available to make good the deficit Court-fee. Yet, the Assessee failed to transmit the Court-fees until the date fixed for compliance came. The Assessee knew it well when it transmitted the Court-fees by post on 16-9-1969 that the appellate authority would not receive the same that very day and, therefore, there would be no compliance with the direction. The postal department is not the agent of the appellate authority and it was the Assessee?s duty to ensure compliance with the direction of the appellate authority. If this was the only contention available in this case, we would have no difficulty in dismissing the application. 6. The postal department is not the agent of the appellate authority and it was the Assessee?s duty to ensure compliance with the direction of the appellate authority. If this was the only contention available in this case, we would have no difficulty in dismissing the application. 6. The other contention raised by the Assessee seems to have force. Admittedly the assessment is one u/s 12(5) of the Act on the footing that the Assessee was liable to pay tax under the Act and had nevertheless without sufficient cause failed to apply for registration. Liability to pay tax arises u/s 4 of the Act and before an assessment u/s 12(5) thereof can be made, the assessing officer has certainly to determine as to with effect from which period the liability accrues. Admittedly there is no finding in that regard. Learned Standing Counsel raised serious objection to our entertaining such a contention mainly on the ground that the order of assessment was passed more than four years back. As we have already stated, the Assessee was pursuing its remedy under the statute and this is not a case where laches can be permitted to be used to defeat the cause of justice. The contention must. therefore, be examined and we think it appropriate that. this [should be examined not by us in this proceeding for a writ of certiorari but by the appellate authority. 7. As already noticed, the requisite deficit Court-fee has been already paid two days beyond the time fixed, In these circumstances. we think it appropriate that the first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Taxat Puri be re-heard in accordance with law. We accordingly quash the two appellate orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Member of the Sales Tax Tribunal and direct that the first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner be re-heard and be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. We make no order as to costs. K.B. Panda, J. 8. I agree.