9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent trade tax revision are as follows: The appellant was granted eligibility certificate under section 4A of the Act by the Divisional Level Committee, Meerut on June 16, 1995, whereby exemption from tax was allowed on the products of the appellant from October 8, 1992 to October 7, 2001, i.e., for a period of 9 years. The maximum fixed capital investment for the purpose of eligibility certificate was Rs. 62,87,325. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, received information from the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax, Bulandshahr, vide letter dated December 21, 2000 qua misuse of the eligibility certificate by the assessee. Accordingly, proceedings under section 4A(3) of the Trade Tax Act were initiated by the Commissioner, Trade Tax and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring. On May 29, 2002, the assessee made another application for adjournment, which was rejected and the Commissioner, Trade Tax proceeded to pass an order cancelling the exemption certificate of the appellant after recording a categorical finding that he has misused the same by sale of products of another unit. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Commissioner, the appellant filed Appeal No. 106 of 2002 under section 10(2) of the Trade Tax Act before the Trade Tax Tribunal. Before the Tribunal also he repeated the same practice of seeking adjournment. For the purpose, adjournment applications were filed on April 28, 2003 and thereafter on July 11, 2003. The next date fixed was August 13, 2003. On the said date neither his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted on an application made by post by the assessee it becomes the duty of the Tribunal to intimate the next date by post. It is not in dispute that the appeal was filed by the assessee himself, on 11/13th July, 2003, the appellant made an application for adjournment by post, it was his duty to have followed the case and to have obtained information of the next date fixed after his adjournment application dated 11/13th July, 2003 was granted. The appellant assessee has been most negligent in pursuing the proceedings as is reflected from the order of the Tribunal. This court finds absolutely no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The present trade tax revision is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
