ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30-3-1999 PASSED BY THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAGADHRI, THE F APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 39 OF THE HARYANA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1973 (HEREINAFTER "THE ACT" FOR SHORT) BEFORE THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 39 OF THE ACT, THE APPEAL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED UNLESS THE AMOUNT OF TAX ASSESSED WAS PAID. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ON A PRAYER MADE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB- 9 SECTION (5) OF SECTION 39 OF THE ACT THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: "HEARD. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PAY THE AMOUNT UNDER DISPUTE. IN VIEW OF THIS, I ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAX SUBJECT TO FURNISHING OF SURETY BOND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CONCERNED UP TO 18-8-1999. CASE TO COME UP ON 25-8-1999." 3. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH THE SURETY BOND IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 10-8-1999 PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. THE REASON AS ASSIGNED BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT HE WAS OUT OF BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ARRANGE SURETY BOND WITHIN THE APPOINTED TIME. HOWEVER, ON 25-8-1999 THE APPEAL CAME TO BE DISMISSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH THE SURETY BOND. 4. ON 30-4-2001, THE APPELLANT DID FURNISH THE SURETY BOND BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HAVING FURNISHED THE SURETY BOND, THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE SOUGHT FOR REVIVAL OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE JOINT COMMISSIONER SETTING OUT THE GROUNDS FOR DELAY IN COMPLIANCE AND IN THE EVENT OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FEELING SATISFIED OF THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN COMPLIANCE HE COULD HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY IN COMPLIANCE AND RESTORED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT DID NOT SEEK REVIVAL OF THE APPEAL BUT INSTEAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL PUTTING IN ISSUE THE ORDERS DATED 10-8-1999 AND 25-8-1999 PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. THE SAID APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 5. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY SPECIAL LEAVE. 6. THE SAID APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 5. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY SPECIAL LEAVE. 6. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF HARYANA, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WARRANT THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER DISMISSING THE APPEAL BEING SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL REMANDED TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR HEARING AND DECISION ON MERITS. 7. A LIABILITY OF RS 5,73,757 HAS BEEN FASTENED ON THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS TO BE A SELF-EMPLOYED TECHNICAL ENTREPRENEUR HAVING STARTED A SMALL BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING BRASS UTENSILS. ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALES TAX PROCEEDINGS WHICH CREATED A LIABILITY DISPROPORTIONATE TO HIS MEANS, HE HAS BEEN THROWN OUT OF BUSINESS AND HIS INDUSTRY HAS BEEN CLOSED DOWN. IN OUR OPINION SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER DATED 10-8-1999 MADE BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER WAS MADE OUT AND, THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON MERITS. 8. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER DATED 25-8-1999 PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER DATED 10-8-1999 IS SET ASIDE. INSTEAD, IT IS DIRECTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SURETY BOND HAVING BEEN FILED ON 30-4-2001 BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THE TIME FOR COMPLIANCE APPOINTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 10-8-1999 SHALL BE EXTENDED UP TO THE TIME OF ACTUAL COMPLIANCE AND THE APPEAL SHALL BE HEARD AND DECIDED ON MERITS BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. 9. NO ORDER AS TO THE COSTS.