ORDER D. MURUGESAN, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, made in O.P. No. 399 of 2002 and O.M.P. No. 481 of 2002 dated April 29, 2002. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondents 2 and 3. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as below : The assessment order was passed against the petitioner by the Commercial Tax Officer on February 29, 2000. As against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vellore on April 24, 2000 and the said appeal was rejected on February 27, 2001 and the copy of the order was received by the petitioner only on March 23, 2001. Though the petitioner had further remedy of second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, it filed a rectification petition before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on May 4, 2001. Since the rectification petition was pending and the same was disposed of only on February 6, 2002 the petitioner did not prefer second appeal within the period of limitation. As the second appeal was beyond the period of limitation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal as against the original assessment order dated February 29, 2000. The said appeal was rejected on the ground that the original assessment order had become final as early as on February 27, 2001 as no second appeal was filed. In view of the same, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the original assessment order. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. From the above, it is apparent that though the petitioner had remedy of filing a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated February 27, 2001, with bona fide belief of getting an order before the same authority, he filed a rectification petition, which was within the statutory period of limitation for filing a second appeal. The petitioner did not also file an appeal on the bona fide impression that his rectification petition will be disposed of in his favour. Only when the same was rejected on February 6, 2002, the petitioner had approached the Special Taxation Tribunal challenging the original assessment order. The petitioner did not also file an appeal on the bona fide impression that his rectification petition will be disposed of in his favour. Only when the same was rejected on February 6, 2002, the petitioner had approached the Special Taxation Tribunal challenging the original assessment order. In our considered view, the petitioner, after the rejection of the rectification petition, ought to have approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with a petition to condone the delay giving reasons in not preferring the appeal within the period prescribed under the statute. However, this question was neither put forth nor adjudicated upon before the Taxation Special Tribunal and the appeal was rejected only on the ground that the original assessment order had become final, as the petitioner did not prefer the second appeal. The reason adduced by the petitioner in not preferring the second appeal merits acceptance. Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Taxation Special Tribunal. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal within a period of 15 days from today and if such an appeal is preferred, the same shall be considered on merits without reference to the question of limitation and disposed of in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner. We make it clear that the respondents are entitled to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of tax on the basis of original assessment order, if no appeal is filed by the petitioner as directed above. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 33331 of 2002 is closed. Petition disposed of accordingly.