9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application of the present petitioners for condonation of delay and also consequently, dismissing the Second Appeal. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition, are as under :- (a) The petitioner, which is a Company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act", for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act" for short). (b) The present petition is concerned with the assessment year for the period 1992-93. The petitioner was assessed for the Sales Tax liability for the said assessment year on 19.2.1998, Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s pending in part. The learned counsel submits that one Shri Himanshu Kothari, who is consultant of the petitioners had advised the petitioners that the appeal is pending in part and as such, the petitioners were not aware that the appeal was dismissed in entirety, thereby finding it necessary to file an appeal against part of the order with which the petitioners were aggrieved. It is submitted that not only that, but when the demand was received by the petitioners vide communication dated 24.4.2007, the petitioners had immediately addressed a communication on 7.5.2007, wherein it is categorically stated that the appeal was pending before the first Appellate Authority. It is submitted that thereafter only for the first time when the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submits that the learned Tribunal has also failed to take into consideration the facts given in the affidavit of Mahendra Shantaram Gayatonde, who was the authorized representative of the company. 6. Smt. Helekar, the learned AGP appearing for the Revenue vehemently opposes the petition. She submits that there was gross and inordinate delay, which is not at all explained by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that, even from the material placed on record it will reveal that the petitioners were not at all diligent in prosecuting the matter. She submits that the learned Tribunal has correctly applied the law and found that no case for condonation of delay is made out. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to calculation of Cumulative Quantum of Benefit. It would further reveal that the appellant had clearly stated that the other points and objections and grounds of appeal are still contested and not withdrawn. It however appears that the First Appellate Authority, since there was a bunch of appeals, decided all the appeals and dismissed all of them as withdrawn along with the present appeal. 10. An affidavit has been filed before the learned Tribunal by Shri Kothari who was consultant. He has stated that after the order was passed by the appellate Authority, he had approached the Appellate Authority and informed that the request made by the petitioners for withdrawal of appeal was only in part. He has stated that the learned Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would do necessary correction. It is further evident that after receipt of the communication dated 24.4.2007 demanding the amount for the aforesaid assessment year, a reply was immediately sent by the petitioners on 7.5.2007 to the Respondent-Authority, wherein again it was specifically stated that the appeal is still pending and the petitioner was waiting for the final hearing. On a specific query as to whether the said letter is replied to the petitioners, Smt. Helekar, the learned AGP for the Revenue, on instructions from the officer, who is present in Court, fairly states that no such reply was sent to the petitioner. Again for a period of three years, there was nothing from the end of the Respondents. Only after three years again a dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had requested for withdrawal of appeal in part, the Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as withdrawn in toto. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that the act of Court shall prejudice none. Reliance in this respect shall be placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gursharan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 459. The Appellate Authority acting under the said Act, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. On account of an error which is committed by a quasi-judicial authority, and which according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, was assured to be corrected by him, but however not corrected by him, a prejudice cannot be permitted to be caused to a litigan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
