9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigant requiring him to pay or to comply with Central sales tax demand of more than Rs. 30 lacs. The complications arose on account of the advocate with drawing the petitioner's second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal from an ex parte final order of the first appellate authority. This withdrawal by the advocate was on the basis of his understanding that an earlier appeal from the interim order of the first appellate authority directing deposit had been partly allowed by reducing the deposit of tax from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 50,000 by the Sales Tax Tribunal would necessarily mean that the appeal before the first appellate authority would be heard on merits. Facts: (a) By assessment order dated March 31, 2001 for the year 1997-98 the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the challan for part payment made of Rs. 50,000 to this Tribunal. The Revenue confirmed the compliance of part payment. Thereafter, Mr. Kabra and Mr. Thorat requested to remand the matter to the Deputy Commis sioner (Appeal) for hearing on the merits. In view of the request from both sides and after taking into consideration merits of the matter, I found no reason to disagree with both the parties. Hence, the order. Order Second Appeal No. 1579 of 2001 is partly allowed. The appellant has made part payment as per order of this Tribunal and hereby the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) VI, Mumbai City Division, Mumbai, to hear Appeal No. DC/ APP-VI-CA/93/2001-02 on merits and dispose of the matter." (f) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter, the appellant filed one more second appeal with Sales Tax Tribunal being Second Appeal No. 241 of 2007 against the ex parte final order dated August 30, 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal). The Sales Tax Tribunal by order dated January 4, 2010 dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable as an appeal being Appeal No. 725 of 2002 against the order dated August 30, 2001 was already disposed of on November 30, 2005. It is in the above facts that Mr. C. B. Thakkar, the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner, submits that injustice has been caused to the petitioner in view of misunderstanding on the part of its lawyer. All that the petitioner seeks is an opportunity to present its case on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for having failed to ensure that Appeal No. 725 of 2002 is not withdrawn. In these circumstances, it may not be fair for a litigant to suffer on account of lapses on the part of its advocate. It is not necessary to discuss any further details but the fact remains that the petitioner's Second Appeal No. 725 of 2002 was withdrawn on Novem ber 30, 2005. In short, the appellant's Second Appeal No. 725 of 2002 against the Final Order dated August 30, 2001 of the Deputy Commis sioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) was never heard on merits. Hence, without going into any further details writ petition is allowed and the order dated November 30, 2005 of the Sales Tax Tribunal disposing the Second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
