TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated May 3, 1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on a first appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2.. The first appeal was decided by an order dated May 3, 1986, while the appeal before the Tribunal was filed after more than 2 years in January, 1989. The period prescribed for filing an appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deponent and the deponent was not aware regarding the disposal of his abovementioned appeal before January 10, 1989. 4.. That for the first time the first appellate order has been served on January 18, 1989." 3.. The Tribunal found that the copy of the appellate order was received by the appellant s counsel on May 13, 1986 and his signature was available on the order sheet and, therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel did not inform the appellant about the decision of the appeal and did not deliver the copy of the appellate order to the appellant. It was also not explained why the dealer did not find out from the counsel about the fate of the appeal for such a long period and after the alleged knowledge on January 10, 1989 the petitioner did not claim that he contacted the counsel to find out the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment, the copy of the order could not be served on a lawyer. Reliance is also placed on Jai Mata Santoshi Int Bhatta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1991 UPTC 599 in which the same view was adopted following the case of Arjun Lal Upadhya 1987 UPTC 514. 7.. A perusal of the amended rule 77 would show that still an agent can receive any notice or copy of the order on behalf of his principal. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving a copy of the order. In my view, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments cannot be applied mechanically and the petitioner must have shown that the counsel could not be treated as an agent of the petitioner for receiving the copy of the order. This has not been done. 8.. For the above reasons, I find no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
