TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority/objection hearing authority who shall hear and decide the contentions of the parties after issuing due notice to the parties and granting due liberty in that regard - Decided in favour of Revenue. - ST.APPL. 33/2009 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2015 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. R.K. GAUBA, JJ. For The Respondent : Ms. Latika Choudhury Adv. for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. This appeal was originally dismissed following this Court s previous Division Bench s ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Kandhari Radio Ors., CEAC No. 6/2007 decided on 22.04.2009. The rationale for dismissing the appeal was that the High Court was not empowered to entertain a delayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Behl Construction ILR (2009) III Delhi 599. After noticing several decisions of the Supreme Court on the effective provisions which stipulate that something be done within a specified period, the Court ruled that the time limits indicated in Section 74 are merely directory . In Behl Construction (supra), the Court observed pertinently as follows:- 14. The time limits of three (3) months, five (5) months, six (6) months or eight (8) months are merely directory. However, if such time limit expires and the notice under section 74(8) of the said Act is issued then the period of 15 days would be mandatory. The consequence of not passing an order is clearly spelt out and that is that the objections would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on pending before the commissioner cannot be deemed to have been accepted simply because of the fact that the time specified in section 74(7) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 has expired and the Commissioner has not exercised either of the options set out in section 74(7)(a) or 74(7)(b). The deeming provision of section 74(9) of the said Act would only get triggered if the conditions precedent provided under section 74(8) of the said Act are satisfied. We also hold that the Tribunal erred in law in fixing a mandatory period of eight months, within which the Commissioner has to dispose of the objection pending before him under section 74(7) of said Act, particularly, when no such stipulation is provided by the statute. Consequently, bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
