Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 894 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxVacation of interim order - Whether in fact any review application dated December 13, 2000 was filed by the petitioner and whether pending such review application, it is open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in pursuance of the orders dated October 21, 2000 and November 20, 2000 - Held that:- Whether or not any review application, as claimed by the petitioner, was filed on December 13, 2000 or assuming in favour of the petitioner that if any such application was filed as claimed by the petitioner on December 13, 2000 the reviewing authority was required to decide the same within the maximum period available to it under clause (ii) and the proviso within 180 days, i.e., the period of 90 days as provided under clause (ii) and the extended limit of 90 days in aggregate. If no decision is arrived on the review application in the aforesaid period of 90 days, as prescribed under para 5A, the reviewing authority, in my opinion, would cease to have jurisdiction over the review application and the only remedy available to the applicant, in the present case the petitioner, would be of preferring an appeal before the learned Tribunal under rule 6 of the Scheme of 1989. With reference to the letter dated December 1, 2006, and the admitted case of the petitioner is that the said review application filed on December 13, 2000 was not decided and the prayer made is also for seeking a mandamus that the said review dated December 13, 2000 is deemed to have been decided as allowed. A reading of clause (ii) and the proviso does not show that there is any mention of deemed acceptance or refusal. even assuming that the petitioner had filed the review application on December 13, 2000, after the lapse of 180 days the reviewing authority would have no jurisdiction to decide the same. There is no specific provision for deemed acceptance and in absence of any such provision this prayer cannot be allowed. The alternate prayer of remand too cannot be accepted as the outer-limit of the 180 days period allowed too has long expired. As far as the other reliefs claimed regarding challenge to the orders dated October 21, 2000 and November 20, 2000, the petitioner has remedy of preferring appeal under para 6 of the Scheme of 1989 before the learned Tribunal. Decided against assessee.
|