TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, against the order of penalty dated February 28, 2003 and it is pending for disposal. 3.. After filing the revision petition, the petitioner along with the representative of Promising Export Ltd., visited the office of the learned lawyer Mr. Sumit Kumar Chakraborty. Mr. Chakraborty on that day advised that the validity of seizure out of which the penalty proceeding was initiated cannot be challenged in the revision petition. The appropriate forum is the Tribunal. On being advised further by Mr. Chakroborty, the petitioner contacted his junior Advocate Mr. A.K. Sengupta on July 16, 2003 and the petitioner was advised by Mr. Sengupta to file such application before the Tribunal by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication, the present application may be entertained under law after condoning delay. 6.. The learned State Representative submits that the seizure was made long before filing of this application and by an order dated July 24, 2003 this Tribunal considered the grounds for condonation in RN-238 of 2003 and rejected the prayer. There is actually no new bona fide ground for condonation of the delay caused by the petitioner. The application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 7.. It appears from the caption of the application for condonation that it was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as, the Tribunal is not a cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff maintains the action or suit. The cause of action, thus means all that bundle of facts which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if transversed in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Thus, to prove that the seizure was illegal, it is not necessary to transverse the penalty proceedings initiated after the seizure. Therefore, the cause of action for filing this application actually arose immediate after the seizure was made by the respondent. Hence, the application absolutely is time barred. 10.. The contention of the learned lawyer with regard to the previous application filed by the M/s. Promising Exports Ltd., that it was not considered on merits, cannot be accepted, in view of the findings made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
