Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that under, Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1959, the petitioner ought to have filed a restoration petition before the Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal concerned for the restoration of the appeal, which had been dismissed for default. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. 4. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to move the first respondent Tamil nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations ,1959. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.