9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the investigating officer which demands interest. The material facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The appellant is a dealer registered under the Act and engaged in execution of works contract. The business premises of the appellant were visited by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Investigation II, for verification of books of accounts on January 5, 2007. At the time of physical verification, Sri Nagaraj, person in-charge, was present and assisted the entire proceedings. On the basis of the information gathered during the said visit, notice was issued under section 38(5) of the Act dated October 8, 2006, informing the company to appear and thereafter by virtue of the power vested under sections 52(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 62(2B) of the Act. The appellate authority has been given power to condone the delay for a period 180 days after the expiry of 30 days as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 62. In the present appeal there was 67 days delay and the order passed by the appellate authority was illegal and liable to be set aside and the order passed on the merits in the appeal could not have been entertained, as delay has caused loss to the Revenue and accordingly set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and restored the order passed by the investigation authority. Being aggrieved by the said order dated January 19, 2007, this appeal is filed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was delay of 277 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal should have been filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice and that delay up to 180 days would not have been condoned by the appellate authority and the finding of the appellate authority that the notice was served upon Nagaraj and not on the appellant, is only erroneous. As it is clear that it was Nagaraj who represented the appellant before the original authority and it is not open for him to contend that Nagaraj had not been authorised to receive notice on his behalf and himself had authorized Nagaraj to represent before the authorities.In view of the delay beyond the period of 180 days after prescribed period of 30 days for filing appeal would not have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
