TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of learned counsel for the appellant that since the earlier appeals were filed without sanction order, therefore, the second appeals should not have been entertained, cannot be accepted, because if there was no-sanction, then there was no appeal and the subsequent appeals were rightly entertained by the Tribunal, after condoning the delay. Regarding the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to permit the appellant to withdraw the earlier appeals with liberty to file fresh appeals and the earlier appeals will be deemed to be dismissed on merits, section 63(4)(b) of the Act clearly provides that the Tribunal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, may pass such order, as it deems to be jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, after setting aside the assessment order of the assessing authority, passed in favour of the petitioner, had remanded the matter for fresh decision. Against that order, the department filed seven separate appeals before the Tribunal. The petitioner objected the maintainability of those appeals on the ground that no sanction was granted by the competent authority for filing the appeals, but sanction was granted only for filing application. When this objection was raised by the petitioner, counsel for the department made statement before the Tribunal that the department be permitted to withdraw the appeals to enable them to file fresh appeals after removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable, therefore, the same should not have been entertained by the Tribunal, particularly when at the time of permitting the department to withdraw the earlier appeals, no permission was granted to file fresh appeals with proper sanction order. Learned counsel submits that even the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to permit an appeal to be withdrawn with permission to file fresh appeal on the same cause of action, as the Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merits. We do not find any force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the order dated November 23, 2007, passed by the Tribunal, shows that on the objection raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the appeals for want of proper sanctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier appeals were filed without sanction order, therefore, the second appeals should not have been entertained, cannot be accepted, because if there was no-sanction, then there was no appeal and the subsequent appeals were rightly entertained by the Tribunal, after condoning the delay. Regarding the second contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to permit the appellant to withdraw the earlier appeals with liberty to file fresh appeals and the earlier appeals will be deemed to be dismissed on merits, section 63(4)(b) of the Act clearly provides that the Tribunal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, may pass such order, as it deems to be just and proper. In our opinion, un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
