9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for condoning delay of about 229 days in preferring the appeal, an appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner in terms of order dated 15-10- 2007 [copy at Annexure-D] for getting over levy of tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, 3. The writ petitioner had sought to explain the considerable delay in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal, an appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, by urging that the delay was attributable to the fact that the ad judication order of the Commissioner had been served on one Priyaranjan at the branch of the petitioner's establishment at Jamshedpur and had been engaged through one GSS (Global Supply System) on contract basis; that the services of said Priyayanj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of receipt by the said person at the Jamshedpur plant of the petitioner-company being a matter on record, as per the records of the Department and being of the view that as to in what manner the petitioner-company carries on its business is its own concern, the explanation did not constitute sufficient ground to condone the delay and therefore found no merit in the application for condoning the delay and accordingly dismissed the application and consequently dismissed the appeal also. 6. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Succession of lawyers have appeared for the petitioner in this case only to seek for adjournment on the premise that a senior co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hwetha, learned counsel for the petitioner that pendency of similar matters before the Tribunal involving the very question is other ground, because of which the delay application should have been ordered in favour of the petitioner-company, we find that it is not the same as to hold that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order and also to hold that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. If the Tribunal has exercised its discretion for the purpose of condoning the delay in preferring an appeal and on taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner/appellant and consciously holds that a case for condonation is not made out, which conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
