Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s B.K. Steels Versus State of Punjab And Another

2015 (8) TMI 1184 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Condonation of delay – Invalid service of notice – Appellant seeks to set aside impugned order of Tribunal-VAT dismissing its application filed for condonation of 907 days’ delay in filing appeal as well as appeal, being barred by limitation – Held that:- Admittedly revenue instead of sending order at address of appellant had sent same to Branch Office of appellant, which as per appellant was never received – Tribunal has wrongly drawn presumption of service upon appellant under Section 27 of Ge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be set aside – Delay of 907 days’ in filing appeal hereby allowed – Tribunal directed to decide appeal of appellant on merit in accordance with law – Decided in favour of Assesse. - VATAP No. 214 of 2014 - Dated:- 10-8-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Sandeep Goyal, Adv For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Ramendra Jain, J. The appellant has approached this Court inter alia for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned Value Ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act for short). After affording an opportunity to the owner of the goods, the detaining officer being not satisfied referred the case to the Enquiry Officer, who after conducting the inquiry imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,51,687/- under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act upon the appellant, being owner of the goods. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala, who after hearing the appellant as well as the dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 22.05.2009. Since, the appellant was still unsatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2009, therefore, he preferred an appeal along with an application under Section 64 of the Act seeking condonation of 907 days delay in filing the appeal, which were dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2013. 4. It is contended that it was obligatory upon the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t un-responded, the appellant made personal inquiry and came to know on 04.04.2012 that its appeal has already been decided on 22.05.2009 and the order was sent to the address of its branch office at Rajpura. However, the same was never received. Hence, the delay of 907 days in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, rather was on account of above facts and circumstances. 5. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal taking presumption of service upon the appellant under Sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the ground of delay even though there was a serious dispute with regard to the communication of the order? 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant in its memorandum of appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala has shown its address as "M/s B.K. Steels, G.T. Road, Rajpura, Head Office, Mandi No.1, Abohar C/o Sh. S.L. Bansal, Advocate, 5-Circular Road, Abohar 152116 (Punjab)". Hence, it was mandatory upon the Deputy Excise and Taxatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

10 and 16.03.2011, its counsel personally went to the office of DETC on 04.04.2012 to know the status of its appeal and then only came to know about the order dated 22.05.2009 passed by him, dismissing the appeal. 8. In view of the above factual position, the learned Tribunal has wrongly drawn presumption of service upon the appellant under Section 27 of the General Clause Act, 1897 and the illustration (f) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, more particularly when it was incumbent upon t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version