|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 639 Records
-
2010 (6) TMI 725
Refund claim - Held that:- We are clearly of the view that the petitioner is entitled to payment of the refund of the said amount of ₹ 12,99,718 forthwith along with interest thereon to be calculated in terms of section 42 of the said Act.
For the second refund claim the notice under section 59 in connection with refund has to be issued within the period of two months stipulated in section 38(3)(a)(ii). As a result, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that because of issuance of notice under section 59 of the said Act, albeit beyond the prescribed time, the refund was not payable, is not tenable.
For third claim of ₹ 13,35,537, we find that the return was filed on April 28, 2009 and the period of two months expired on June 27, 2009. In this case, there was no demand for any security within the period of 15 days, as stipulated in section 38(5). In fact, there has been no demand for security at all. Furthermore, no notice is even claimed to have been issued under section 59 in respect of the period of this refund. There is, therefore, absolutely no reason for the respondents to withhold the payment of refund to the petitioner.
-
2010 (6) TMI 724
Whether the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner as barred by limitation are justified in law and are liable to be interfered with in this batch of writ petitions?
Held that:- The submissions made by Dr. Saraf that the delay in filing the revision petitions by the petitioner to be directed to be condoned cannot be acceded in exercise of power conferred upon the court under article 226 of the Constitution of India and such a direction would amount to a direction to the authority to disobey the provisions of the law as contained in the AGST Act, 1993. Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 723
100 per cent stay of the recovery of disputed tax for the assessment year of 2009-10 (third quarterly) till the disposal of the first appeal claimed
Held that:- The learned counsel for the revisionist failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the second appellate court in favour of the revisionist itself while recovery of tax up to 90 per cent has been stayed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that no interference in revisional jurisdiction is required in the impugned order.
-
2010 (6) TMI 722
Levy of penalty under section 27(3) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 challenged
Held that:- The expression "within the date specified in the notice of assessment" appearing in section 27(3), is only relatable to the fresh assessment made under section 16(1). The petitioner in this case has paid the tax found due as per the fresh assessment under section 16(1). In fact, the fresh assessment under section 16(1) was made on April 9, 2009. The tax found due thereunder, had already been paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of tax remaining unpaid within the dates specified in the notice of assessment, did not arise. Consequently, no liability to pay penalty under section 27(3) could be said to have arisen.
Hence, the impugned order is bad, in so far as it seeks to levy penal interest under section 27(3). Appeal allowed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 721
Writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to determine quantity of diesel to the petitioner's diesel bunk on par with the third respondent's diesel bunk at Mallipattinam and Akkaraipettai, respectively, as per G.O. Ms. No. 170 Commercial Taxes (B2) dated October 29, 2004.
Held that:- In the present case, the petitioners are authorised dealers and are covered by the G.O. and therefore, they are not outsiders to the Government orders. If this fact is accepted, then, between three categories mentioned in the G.O., there cannot be any differentiation unless it is authorised by law. The authority, to regulate the supply of diesel which is sales tax exempted in favour of fishermen, has a role to ensure that such commodity reaches the fishermen through all the three agencies specified in the G.O. subject to proper supervision and regulation to ensure that there is no misuse or abuse. The apex court's decision relates to a claim by a private dealers as against the Government authorised dealers. In the facts of the present case, there is no claim by any outsiders or by any person who is not authorised by the authority. The claim in the writ petitions is by the authorised private diesel outlets who are duly authorised by the competent authority, namely, Director of Fisheries. Therefore, a right flows out the G.O. Ms. Nos. 170 and 130 in favour of the petitioners. The authority cannot discriminate between one category or the other in the absence of a specific provision in the G.O. or any other law. The executive cannot impose a restriction not contemplated in the Government order.
In view of the above, if the petitioners in all these cases satisfy the authority the requirement for supply of sales tax exempt diesel and if they make an indent for supply of sales tax exempt diesel to eligible fishermen, the authorities are bound to verify the claim and supply the same without discrimination subject to the limit specified in the G.O
-
2010 (6) TMI 720
Whether sheets, plates, semis, i.e., billets, etc., but not finished goods made from them were covered by the said expression of entry 45(b)?
Held that:- Having regard to the successive notifications prescribing the situs of aluminium plain sheets and in absence of any overwhelming evidence that the same on the basis of the inputs available can be decisively held to be a finished product emanating from the primary metal aluminium, this court is of the view that for the intervening period February 1, 2000 to February 18, 2002 it ought to be regarded as included in entry 45(b) of Schedule II and taxable at four per cent. The finding of the learned revisional authority to the contrary is unsustainable in law and on facts and is thus adjudged as such.
In the face of the determination that aluminium plain sheets during the period in question were installed in entry 45(b) of Schedule II of the Act and encompassed in "aluminium", the intervention of the revisional authority, when judged by the parameters judicially recognised as peremptory pre-requisites therefor cannot be upheld. The authorities cited are so obviously consistent on the view as noticed hereinabove that no dilation based on individual facts is warranted.In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated November 7, 2002 and the order dated October 23, 2003/October 31, 2003 of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati, Zone B, are quashed
-
2010 (6) TMI 719
Issues involved:
Whether the tax imposed under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 on artificially created light energy (ACLE) as "goods" is correct or not.
Analysis:
The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. case was relied upon by the assessing officer to impose the tax on ACLE. However, it was brought to light that the Supreme Court had set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment. The petitioner raised this issue before the assessing officer, emphasizing the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court had left it open for the first appellate authority to decide whether ACLE can be considered as "goods" under the Act, thereby nullifying the Karnataka High Court's observations.
The assessing officer was expected to record a finding on the petitioner's raised grounds and provide a reasoned order, considering the Supreme Court's judgment. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the assessing officer's order, but it was noted that an appeal under section 55 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 was an alternative remedy available to the petitioner.
Citing various Supreme Court cases, it was highlighted that the appellate court's power is broader than that of the High Court under article 226/227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the appellate authority was deemed capable of adjudicating the petitioner's concerns effectively. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the assessing authority's order, with the petitioner agreeing to file an appeal within two weeks.
The High Court directed that if the appeal was lodged within two weeks, the appellate authority should consider the petitioner's grounds and relevant judgments, including those of the Supreme Court or High Court, and issue a reasoned order within four months. During this period, the petitioner was not compelled to pay the tax imposed by the assessing officer. The writ petition was disposed of with nominal costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 718
Principles of natural justice - Held that:- Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.
In the light of the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the orders of the second and third respondents is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner seeking form XVII under TNGST Act and pass fresh order after considering all objections to be submitted by the petitioner after issuance of notice. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
-
2010 (6) TMI 717
Declining the request of the petitioner in issuing declaration form H under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Held that:- Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.
In the light of the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the orders of the second and third respondents is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner seeking form XVII under TNGST Act and pass fresh order after considering all objections to be submitted by the petitioner after issuance of notice. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
-
2010 (6) TMI 716
Issues:
- Appeal dismissed due to failure to make pre-deposit
- Petitioner's claim of inability to pay pre-deposit
- Failure of first appellate authority to consider exemption request
- Tribunal's dismissal of appeal based on lack of pre-deposit
Analysis:
The petitioner filed three appeals against a composite order that required a 50% pre-deposit of the assessed amount for the years 1999-2002. The appeals were dismissed as the petitioner failed to make the required pre-deposit. The petitioner argued financial inability to pay and filed an application for exemption under section 30(5) of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. However, the first appellate authority did not pass a separate order on the exemption request, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The matter was pursued before the Tribunal, where the petitioner's contention that the pre-deposit requirement did not apply due to the lack of consideration of the exemption request was deemed baseless, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court noted that the first appellate authority should have passed a separate order on the petitioner's application for exemption from pre-deposit as per the proviso to section 30(5) of the Act. Since this was not done, the Court set aside the appellate orders and remitted the matters back to the first appellate authority with a direction to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's exemption applications. The Court instructed the first appellate authority to complete this process within a month, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner and the issuance of a speaking order within one week thereafter. Failure to comply would result in a deferral of recovery until the orders were passed.
In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and any pending applications, emphasizing the importance of the first appellate authority's consideration of exemption requests from pre-deposit requirements under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court's decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness and proper adjudication of the petitioner's claims regarding financial constraints and exemption eligibility.
-
2010 (6) TMI 715
Whether the so-called purchases and the bills relied upon by the petitioner were bogus one and therefore, the claim of the second sales cannot be accepted?
Held that:- As far as the dealer S. Abdul Khader of Saleem Traders was concerned, the second respondent-Tribunal has noted that there was a direct evidence, viz., the owner of the premises, where the dealer was said to have carrying on his business. The said person had deposed before the assessing authority that the concerned dealer, viz., S. Abdul Khader was not doing any business on and after January 1, 1983 in his premises. When such an unassailable evidence, which was not contradicted before the assessing authority, was available with the assessing officer, which was relied upon to hold that the bills said to have been issued by him bearing the said address in the years 1983-84, cannot be accepted as valid bills, we have no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the second respondentTribunal. Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 714
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of loss on sale of securities as speculation loss.
2. Deduction for marketing agent fees paid to ICICI Capital Services Ltd.
3. Disallowance of SEBI turnover tax/fees.
4. Disallowance of provision for incentive.
5. Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234D.
6. Depreciation on stock exchange card.
7. Disallowance of PF payment u/s 43B.
Summary of Judgment:
1. Treatment of Loss on Sale of Securities as Speculation Loss:
The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action of treating the loss on sale of securities amounting to Rs. 2,08,036/- as speculation loss by applying the Explanation to section 73 of the IT Act, 1961. The ITAT upheld this decision, referencing its earlier ruling in the assessee's own case for AY 2001-02, where it was determined that the assessee's activities did not fall within the exceptions provided in the Explanation to section 73.
2. Deduction for Marketing Agent Fees Paid to ICICI Capital Services Ltd.:
The CIT(A) restricted the deduction for marketing agent fees to Rs. 1,24,37,940/- against the claim of Rs. 4,97,51,760/- u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Act. The ITAT found that section 40A(2) was not applicable as the assessee did not meet the 20% shareholding condition. The ITAT held that the AO wrongly invoked section 40A(2) and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A), allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground and dismissing the revenue's appeal.
3. Disallowance of SEBI Turnover Tax/Fees:
The AO disallowed Rs. 34,28,589/- on account of SEBI turnover tax/fees, which was not deposited in the previous year. The ITAT agreed with the assessee that the amount paid before the due date of filing the return is allowable, subject to verification of the dates of deposit by the AO.
4. Disallowance of Provision for Incentive:
The AO disallowed the provision for incentive amounting to Rs. 52,33,685/-, treating it as a contingent liability. The ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of accounting entries and to ensure no double claim of deduction, directing the AO to allow the claim if proper entries were made in accordance with accounting procedures.
5. Charging of Interest u/s 234B and 234D:
The ITAT held that interest u/s 234D is not applicable for the assessment year 2002-03, following the judgment in ITO V. Ekta Promoters (P.) Ltd. Interest u/s 234B was deemed consequential, and the AO was directed accordingly.
6. Depreciation on Stock Exchange Card:
The ITAT found that depreciation on the stock exchange card is not allowable, referencing the judgment in CIT Vs. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. & Ors., where it was held that the stock exchange card does not fall under the categories specified in section 32(1)(ii).
7. Disallowance of PF Payment u/s 43B:
The AO disallowed Rs. 95,614/- u/s 43B for late payment of PF contributions. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the AO to verify payment dates and decide the issue in accordance with the judgment in CIT Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., allowing the claim if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return for employer's contribution, and within the due date/grace period for employees' contribution.
Conclusion:
Both the assessee's and the revenue's appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (6) TMI 713
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of additions as unexplained income on an estimate basis.
2. Non-decision on the addition made on an ad-hoc basis.
Summary:
Issue 1: Confirmation of Additions as Unexplained Income on Estimate Basis
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. The AO made additions based on statements recorded during a survey operation and impounded documents. The additions included Rs.7,12,02,601/- for cash transactions from the sale of 39 flats, Rs.11,70,000/- for brokerage, and Rs.39,00,000/- for car parking charges, totaling Rs.7,91,78,829/-. The AO estimated the price of each flat at Rs.4500/- per sq.ft. against Rs.2200/- per sq.ft. shown by the assessee.
The CIT(A) allowed cross-examination of witnesses and confirmed the addition to the extent of 21 flats sold during the relevant period, based on impounded documents. The CIT(A) confirmed Rs.3,74,81,000/- for on-money on sale of flats, Rs.6,30,000/- for brokerage, and Rs.21,00,000/- for car parking charges, totaling Rs.4,02,11,000/-.
The assessee argued that the AO's additions were based on contradictory statements and not corroborated by documentary evidence. The statements were not signed by the authorized officer, and the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses during the assessment proceedings. The AR contended that the impounded loose sheets were not prepared by the assessee and had no evidentiary value.
The Tribunal noted that except for one statement, others were not attested by an authorized officer. Statements recorded u/s 133A have no evidentiary value unless corroborated by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO's estimated rate of Rs.4500/- per sq.ft. was not supported by impounded documents. The CIT(A)'s reliance on impounded documents for confirming additions was partly upheld. The Tribunal concluded that no addition was warranted for area, parking charges, and brokerage, except for rates mentioned in impounded documents.
Issue 2: Non-decision on Ad-hoc Addition
The CIT(A) did not decide on the addition of Rs.25,000/- made by the AO on an ad-hoc basis. During the hearing, the assessee did not press this ground, and the DR had no objection to its dismissal. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, confirming the addition regarding rates mentioned in impounded documents and dismissing the ad-hoc addition of Rs.25,000/-.
-
2010 (6) TMI 712
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the payment of Central Excise duty under Compounded Levy Scheme, short payment of duty for additional chambers, confirmation of demand for differential duty with penalty, and the validity of the rules governing duty payment.
Payment of Central Excise Duty under Compounded Levy Scheme:
The appellants were operating under the Compounded Levy Scheme as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, paying duty at a specified rate per chamber per month under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.
Short Payment of Duty for Additional Chambers:
The appellant obtained permission to erect an additional chamber and commenced work as per the granted permission. However, discrepancies were found in the payment of Central Excise duty for the additional chambers, leading to a shortfall in duty payment for the relevant months.
Confirmation of Demand and Penalty:
The lower authorities confirmed the demand for the differential duty amount along with interest and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the appellants for the short payment of duty.
Validity of Rules and Decision:
The appellant argued that the demand was not sustainable due to the ultra vires nature of Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. They cited various legal precedents supporting their claim and contended that the demand was based on a procedural violation and should not be upheld.
Judgment:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the additional chambers were used without proper authorization. The officers had visited the premises during the erection process, and the appellant had duly informed them of the work commencement and completion. As the rules governing duty payment were deemed ultra vires, the demand for the unpaid duty was not sustainable. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief.
-
2010 (6) TMI 711
Whether the product, namely, “Sodium Rosinate” is not assessable to Excise duty and as such the detention orders passed on failure of the petitioners to pay the amount of excise duty levied on the goods, are liable to be quashed and set aside?
Held that:- In the present cases, the petitioners have accepted the adjudicatory orders and not preferred appeals challenging the same. In that view of the matter, merely because subsequently in the year 1991, the learned CEGAT has held that the said product “Sodium Rosinate” is not assessable to payment of Excise duty, cannot entitle the petitioners, as a matter of right, to the benefit of the said judgment. Merely because some matters were pending before the learned CEGAT cannot give a right to the petitioners to claim, as a matter of right, the refund of excise, when, as a matter of fact, they have failed to challenge the adjudicatory orders. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petitions. The petitions are therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged.
-
2010 (6) TMI 710
Whether the "medical oxygen" falls under the general category of 'gas' and not a specific item of medical product?
Held that:- Having regard to the use of "medical oxygen" to a patient, as rightly concluded by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the "medical oxygen" would positively satisfy the above three tests laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in STATE OF GOA Versus LEUKOPLAST (INDIA) LTD. [1997 (2) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] . Therefore, when once the said findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as regards the nature of product viz., "medical oxygen" has been noted, it would travesty of justice to still hold that would be falling under the category of 'gas' and not under the category of Entry 95, 20-A of Schedule-I in the year 1991 to 1993. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal in the orders impugned in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, cannot be found fault with. We are not therefore, inclined to interfere with the said order. Moreover, the said issue is directly covered by the decision of Kerala High Court in 139 STC., 504, supra. as the provisions are pari materia. In the said circumstances, applying the said decision also we have no hesitation to hold that the "medical oxygen" would fall only under Entry 95 as of the year 1991 and under Entry 20-A as of the year 1993 and will not fall under Entry 106 as of the year 1991 and Entry 25 as of the year 1993 as contended by the petitioner. We therefore, do not find merit in these Tax case revisions as well as the writ petitions and the same fail and are dismissed
-
2010 (6) TMI 709
CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that appellants had wrongly availed cenvat credit on the basis of non-cenvatable invoice issued by the contractor which was not valid document in terms of Rule 7 of the CCR, 2002 and Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 - it was the case of the appellants that the goods were imported for the appellants factory and were routed through Mitsui only for convenience. The payment through Mitsui was reimbursement of the cost of the equipments and therefore credit was correctly availed - Held that: - the credit is taken not because of endorsement but on the basis of bill of entry which also disclosed the name of the appellant, apart from the fact that the goods accompanying the Bill of entry were subjected to the payment of duty, and on clearance, were directly transported to the appellant’s factory premises and were utilized by the appellants for installation of their factory, and no credit in respect of duty paid on those goods was taken by the contractor - also, the effect of endorsement is only to amend the name of consignee and nothing more. And, it is not the case of the department that on endorsement of the Bill of entry in favour of the appellant, it was, in any manner, rendered to be invalid document or that the import under such document become unlawful.
Credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2010 (6) TMI 708
Issues:
1. Shortage of 40.00 MT of M.S. Scrap during stock taking
2. Allegation of clandestine removal of goods
3. Duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition
Analysis:
Issue 1: Shortage of 40.00 MT of M.S. Scrap during stock taking
The case involved a discrepancy where Central Excise Officers found a shortage of 40.00 MT of M.S. Scrap during a stock taking at the respondent's factory. The adjudicating authority relied on the panchanama to confirm the demand for duty on the shortage. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that the Revenue failed to prove the actual shortage and clandestine removal. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, upheld the shortage of scrap as recorded in the panchanama, dismissing the respondent's claim that no weighment was done and it was only an eye estimation. The duty demand was consequently confirmed.
Issue 2: Allegation of clandestine removal of goods
The Revenue alleged that the shortage of M.S. Scrap indicated clandestine removal of goods by the respondent to evade duty payment. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no corroborative evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal. The absence of evidence such as statements from transporters or buyers, which could be verified by the Revenue, led the Tribunal to conclude that the penalty for suppression of facts with the intent to evade duty was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty was dropped due to lack of substantiating evidence.
Issue 3: Duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition
After confirming the shortage of M.S. Scrap, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand. However, in the absence of concrete evidence to support the allegation of clandestine removal, the penalty was deemed not leviable and was consequently dropped. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal based on these findings, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing allegations of clandestine activities to evade duty payment.
-
2010 (6) TMI 707
Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized foreign origin goods under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Rejection of bills produced by the appellant after seizure.
3. Consideration of goods as actually of foreign origin.
4. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of foreign origin goods seized from the business premises of M/s. Gopal Stores, Ahmedabad valued at Rs. 2,37,460 under the Customs Act, 1962. The proprietor admitted the goods were of foreign origin but failed to produce valid purchase documents. The seized goods included items like wrist watches and electronic calculators. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
2. The appellant later produced bills from a Customs notified shop, M/s. Satyam Selection, after a gap of three weeks from the seizure date. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the bills, stating the shop ceased to exist before 1996. The appellant's advocate argued that investigations should have been conducted at the seller's end and claimed the goods were not originally branded, suggesting they were indigenously manufactured under foreign brand names.
3. The judge criticized the authorities for rejecting the bills hastily without investigating the supplier, M/s. Satyam Selection. The judge noted that the goods' value in the invoices was lower, indicating they might not be genuinely of foreign origin. It was emphasized that establishing the goods' smuggled character required proof of actual foreign origin. The judge highlighted the presence of fake goods in the market under foreign brand names, warranting the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
4. Ultimately, the judge set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant, granting relief based on the lack of evidence proving the goods' actual foreign origin. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing the foreign character of seized goods before confiscation, ensuring the appellant received the benefit of doubt in this case.
-
2010 (6) TMI 706
Issues:
Restoration of Appeal for non-compliance of Stay-Order.
Analysis:
The applicant filed an application for Restoration of Appeal after their appeal was dismissed for not complying with the Stay-Order, which required a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 within a specified time frame. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant claimed that the amount was deposited late due to a mistake by their Counsel's clerk, who failed to inform the Counsel promptly. The application for Restoration of Appeal was filed after this delay was discovered. The applicant argued that the delay was unintentional and should be overlooked considering the merits of the case.
The Advocate for the applicant contended that the delay in compliance was due to the late deposit of the amount and the mistake made by the Counsel's clerk. The applicant had a strong case on merits, and the delay should be disregarded. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the delay was significant, citing precedents where appeals were not restored in similar situations. The Department relied on cases where appeals were not restored without a sufficient cause for the delay.
Upon hearing both sides, the Judge noted that the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's order to make the deposit within the specified time frame, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Judge emphasized that no request for modification of the stay order or extension of time was made. The applicant deposited the amount late and only inquired about the status of the Restoration of Appeal application when prompted by the Department's actions. Citing legal precedents, the Judge highlighted the necessity for timely filing of appeals and applications for restoration. The Judge found no merit in the applicant's plea for Restoration of Appeal and rejected the application based on the principles established in the cited case laws.
In conclusion, the application for Restoration of Appeal was rejected by the Tribunal due to the applicant's failure to comply with the Stay-Order within the specified time frame and the absence of a sufficient cause for the delay in depositing the required amount. The Judge emphasized the importance of timely compliance with statutory orders and the need for valid reasons when seeking restoration of dismissed appeals.
............
|
9911796707
