9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued to the revisionist on March 12, 1992 which was amended on September 2, 1994. Thereafter the revisionist established another unit and applied for eligibility certificate in respect thereof which was granted on July 18, 2000. Subsequently, the revisionist applied under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for rectification of the eligibility certificate dated July 18, 2000 vide application dated nil alleged to have been received in the office of the District Industries Centre, Kanpur Nagar on August 12, 2000. When the aforesaid application was not considered, the revisionist submitted another application allegedly by way of reminder on May 21, 2004. The Divisional Level Committee vide order dated August 18, 2009 rejected the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned on the alleged application of August 12, 2000 and in forming its own opinion on bare perusal of his signatures. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Tribunal had not assigned any reason for discarding the report of the handwriting expert and in holding that the signature of receipt of the above application is not that of the officer concerned. In other words, the dispute in the present revision is only about the submission of the application for rectification under section 22 of the Act on August 12, 2000. The revisionist is relying upon the copy of the application which allegedly contains the signatures of Vishnu Kumar Chaurasia, an officer of the District Industries Centre, who has allegedly received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparing the signatures and formed an opinion that the signatures of the officer concerned do not tally with the signatures appearing on the copy of the application. The Tribunal accordingly ignored the application of August 12, 2000 treated the reminder dated May 21, 2004 to be an application under section 22 of the Act and held it to be beyond time of three years. The Tribunal in recording the above finding regarding the signatures of Vishnu Kumar Chaurasia on the copy of the application has not stated that the signatures were compared by the Tribunal whereupon an opinion was framed that the report of handwriting expert is incorrect. In fact there is no finding by the Tribunal that the report of the handwriting expert is incorrect. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
