9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders dated March 14, 1995, annexure 4 to the writ petition, refusing to entertain the refund applications made by petitioners. 3.. Brief facts are that for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the petitioners purchased chocolate from M/s. Hindustan Coka Products Limited, Ghaziabad, which was subsequently renamed as Cadbury India Limited. There was come confusion about the rate of tax. The be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of being barred by limitation. The assessing authority took such view strictly construing the proviso to section 29-A of the Act, which provides that no such claim shall be entertained after the expiry of three years from the date of the order of assessment or one year from any date of the final order on appeal, revision or reference, if any, in respect thereof, whichever is later. 5.. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of the order of the Tribunal. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that period of limitation of one year as prescribed in the proviso is inflexible. 6.. The question for consideration is whether period of limitation as provided by proviso to section 29-A will be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the Tribunal's order on the part of the petitioners or from the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and natural justice." 7.. Following the aforesaid principle, enunciated by the Supreme Court, we agree with the contention of the petitioners that limitation should be reckoned from the date of the knowledge of the order of the Tribunal. The relevant facts about the date of the order of the Tribunal and date when the order of the Tribunal was communicated to the petitioners, as stated in the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
