Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 807 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay in filing of an Appeal - stay of recovery proceedings - Petitioner contended that, since the books of accounts and all other forms were lying in the factory, which was sealed on possession being taken of the factory by the 4th respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, they are not in a position to challenge the assessment order - Re-opening of ex-parte assessment - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- While it is not known whether the books of accounts and other documents, which the appellant-writ petitioner seeks release of, are still lying within the factory premises which has been sealed by the 4th respondent-Bank, such a request can, undoubtedly, be made to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, since possession being taken by the fourth respondent of the factory premises, under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, would include all movables and immoveable lying within the factory premises, including the books of accounts. There is no bar, therefore, for the appellant-writ petitioner to file an IA in the pending proceedings, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking release of the books of accounts, if any, lying within the factory premises. It is not even known whether the books of accounts, which the appellant-writ petitioner claims are located in the factory, are, in fact, located within the factory or not. Even if they are, it is still a matter of conjecture whether the appellant-writ petitioner’s appeal would be entertained under Section 31 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, after a lapse of more than a year - Further the scope of interference, in an intra-Court appeal, is extremely limited and, save cases where the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, no interference is called for. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order under appeal. Appeal dismissed.
|