ORDER V. K. SINGHAL, J. - The validity of the words "at any time before the appeal is finally heard" used in section 22(2A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 have been assailed in this petition. 2. In an appeal preferred by the assessee-department was earlier having right to file cross-objections within thirty days and now by virtue of amendment by Act 15 of 1991 it is stated that an indefinite time has been permitted by the Legislature for filing the memorandum of cross-objections. It is pointed out that provisions under C.P.C., Income-tax and other Acts have provided the limitation of 30 days for filing cross-objections and by this amendment providing indefinite time it is an arbitrary exercise. Section 22(2A) reads as under : "The officer authorised under sub-section (1) or the person against whom an appeal has been preferred, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner has been preferred under sub-section (1) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he has not appealed against such order or any part thereof, file at any time before the appeal is finally heard, a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the order of the Deputy Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (1)." 3. Arguments of both learned counsel for parties have been heard. 4. At the outset, it may be observed that provisions of section 22(2A) are not indefinite in the sense that the memorandum of cross-objections could be filed before finally hearing of the appeal. Once the appeal is finally heard, then power under section 22(2A cannot be exercised. It may be by the experience or otherwise that the Legislature had given liberty to the respondent for filing the memorandum of cross-objections even after the expiry of 30 days as was provided before the amendment by Act No. 15 of 1991. In any case, it is the wisdom of the legislation and not in the domain of this Court to consider that aspect. In any case, it is the wisdom of the legislation and not in the domain of this Court to consider that aspect. Even in a case where the appeal is filed before the Tribunal by the department the assessee can also file memorandum of cross-objections at any time before the appeal is finally heard. 5. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the amendment to file the cross-objections is violative of any provisions of Constitution in particular article 14 of the Constitution. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.