Judgment :- Mishra J.When the case was listed before me on June 25, 1993, I thought it proper to direct the petitioner herein to file the appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay before the appropriate authority and accordingly to enable the petitioner to do so, adjourned the petition. I was informed at the next hearing that the petitioner had filed the statutory appeal with a condone delay petition before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, but he was not passing any order either on the petition to condone the delay or in the appeal. On July 2, 1993, I ordered as follows : "It is stated at the bar that the petitioner herein has filed the statutory appeal with a condone delay petition. The appropriate authority, i.e., the Appellate Assistant commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, is directed to pass order on the condone delay petition. Put up after one week." 2. An order, however, dated July 6, 1993, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, has been produced before me, which records as follows : " The appellants have preferred an appeal against the orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax officer-III, Tuticorin, dated May 28, 1987, in TNGST/547745/83-84. On perusal of the affidavit dated June 8, 1993 filed by the appellants, the following points came to light. The appellants were originally assessed on April 30, 1985, in TNGST/547745/83-84. ON appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), tirunelveli, remanded the case to the assessing officer for disposal after check of the accounts were received back by the appellants from the bank only on August 29, 1986 in Ap. 30/86. The assessing officer without check of accounts, confirmed the original assessment in his order dated May 28, 1987 in TNGST/547745/83-84. The accounts were received back by the appellants from the bank only on August 2, 1988.On receipt of the certified copy of assessment order dated May 28, 1987 received by the appellants on August 16, 1989, filed a writ petition in the High Court in its order dated February 11, 1991 has issued the writ petition, at the request of the counsel for the appellants. Once again the appellant sent the appeal petition to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has returned the appeal petition in L. Dis 1425/91 dated August 2, 1991. Once again the appellant sent the appeal petition to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has returned the appeal petition in L. Dis 1425/91 dated August 2, 1991. Again the appellant filed a Writ petition No. 16550 of 1991 in the high court, which said to have been come up for hearing on June 25, 1993 and the high court has allowed a week's time to file the appeal with petition for the condonation delay. But the above high court order copy has not been received in this office. The appellants have also not filed copy of the above order. The appellants have resubmitted the appeal petition with petition for condonation of delay on June 29, 1993. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal within 30 days of receipt of the second assessment order dated May 28, 1987. They have filed the appeal petition only on June 29, 1993 after a lapse of more than six years of time. Under section31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT) is empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal up to 30 days after the initial time-limit of 30 days allowed under the Act. In view of the facts, I am of the conclusive opinion that the delay is beyond the limit of 30 days empowered to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in the Act. In the present case the delay is more than six years, hence I am not inclined to condone the long delay in filing the appeal, hence the petition for the condonation of delay is rejected as not maintainable. Consequently the appeal petition is also returned to the appellants. 3. The case history is rather a late of some sort of an attitude of apathy of the respondents towards the petitioner. Facts in this behalf are narrated in of affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in support of the prayer for a wait of mandamus by directing the second respondent to condone the delay and to take up the appeal for disposal on merits. It is revealing how the petitioner has been dragged to litigation subjected to tax demand on a best judgment assessment, his representations and objections were ignored and it appears, finally orders were passed on May 28, 1987 without service of the notice therefore or there of. It is revealing how the petitioner has been dragged to litigation subjected to tax demand on a best judgment assessment, his representations and objections were ignored and it appears, finally orders were passed on May 28, 1987 without service of the notice therefore or there of. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the order only when he was served with a demand notice on July 29, 1989 and although he applied for the certified copy of the order, it was not given to him. He then moved this Court in W.P. No. 993 of 1989 on January 29, 1990. A notice of motion returnable on February 22, 1990, was ordered and finally on February 11, 1991, the Court held that the petitioner could prefer an appeal against the assessment order and give him liberty to raise all the contentions. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appropriate authority. The appeal, it is said, was not entertained at all. The petitioner then moved the instant writ petition. After the instant writ petition and the above orders, the latest order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is that he has no power to condone the delay beyond the limit of 30 days under section31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 4. It shall be indeed be harmful both for the Revenue and the State on the one hand the assesses on the other hand, if the officers who do not have the knowledge and correct appreciation of the law and the principles upon which power to assess and release tax is exercised, are appointed and allowed to hold office of responsibility. Their such acts bring a bad name to revenue administration of the State. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, is one such officer, who has been either careless and casual in his approach or deliberately ignoring the provisions of the law as to limitation, which have duly been clarified by several judgments of this Court. 5. If the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would have cared to see the law on the subject, it would not have gone unnoticed by him, that the outer limitation period for condonation of delay was introduced after the order of assessment and a right of appeal accrued to the appellant/petitioner herein. 5. If the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would have cared to see the law on the subject, it would not have gone unnoticed by him, that the outer limitation period for condonation of delay was introduced after the order of assessment and a right of appeal accrued to the appellant/petitioner herein. In such a situation, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be said to be right in his approach that section31(1) of the Act empowered him to condone delay in filing the appeal up to 30 days after the initial time-limit of 30 days allowed under the Act. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after bestowing all necessary considerations to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concerned should be asked to hear both the condonation delay petition and the appeal together and pass a composite order so that if there is a serious mistake in subjecting the petitioner to any tax or penalty, the same is rectified by the competent authority and if the petitioner has been raising unnecessary objections and making attempts to malign the assessing authority and the other officers, he is accordingly suitably dealt with. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, however, in my opinion, has shown sufficient reluctance and by delaying the hearing of the matter on merits and from all that is transpired in the instant proceeding, it could be safely inferred that the petitioner will have reasonable apprehension in his mind as to his getting justice at the hands of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. It is a fit case, in my opinion, in which the chairman, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, is directed to administratively transfer the above mentioned proceeding from the file of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, to the file of any other competent officer and accordingly give intimation of the same to the petitioner well in time so that he may appear before him. 7. For the reasons as above, I am inclined to direct the respondents to ignore the order dated July 6, 1993 in A. No. 2032/93 of the second respondent. But the second respondent is directed to take up the appeal along with the petition to condone delay and pass composite orders on the appeal as well as on the petition for condoning the delay in accordance with law. But the second respondent is directed to take up the appeal along with the petition to condone delay and pass composite orders on the appeal as well as on the petition for condoning the delay in accordance with law. This direction is however subject to any order that the Chairmen, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, administratively shall issue transferring the petitioner's appeal along with the petition to condone delay to any other competent authority. In that event, the directions shall apply to the said authority. 8. The writ is ordered as above. There shall however be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned department in the State Government for appropriate action against the second respondent herein in the matter.