9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days in terms of Section 35 stands settled against the assessee, the appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. 2. It is seen that the said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the applicant before the Honble High Court of Allahabad, who vide their order dated 12.12.12, taking into consideration the submissions of the advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant observed that inasmuch as the Tribunal has not discussed the issue of service of order on the authorised representative of Shri Vijay Agarwal, granted liberty to the applicant to move an application for rectification of mistake within a period of 2 weeks from the date of passing of order. Though the Honble High Court granted a period of 2 weeks to the applicant from 12.12.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been submitted. 4. As is clear from the above, Commissioner (Appeals) has given categorical finding on the service of order-in-original and has also observed that Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, in his complaint to the Police Chowki has stated that order in original was received from the Range office on 26.2.09 and same was lost during the way to the office. It is only subsequently that the applicant procured a copy from the department on 21.10.09 and filed an appeal there against on 17.12.09. If the order received by the applicant on 26.2.09 was lost during the way to the office, he could have asked for another copy within a period of 60 days during which he was to file an appeal against the said order. He only asked for another copy later on, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d section has to be to the authorised representative, duly authorised to receive the orders. The advocate who is engaged for representing the limited company, in legal proceedings before the adjudicating authority cannot held to be authorised representative for the purpose of section 37C. In many cases, where the orders stand received by the advocate, but not by the assessee, or his authorised representative, the benefit of limitation stands given to the assessee by taking the date of receipt of order by him as the relevant date. As such, we are of the view that inasmuch as Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal was the appellants employee, who had gone to the Range office and the order was served upon him personally on 26.2.09, the appellants plea that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
