New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

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

2015 (8) TMI 1184 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - [2016] 87 VST 228 (P&H) - 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 ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ributable to gross negligence of party – Therefore order of Tribunal liable 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 sett .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e detained under Section 51(6)(a) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ( 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), P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8. Again, the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy 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 upo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Patiala to know about the status of its appeal. When the above letters went 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant 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 15211 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no response was received by the appellant against its letters dated 02.11.2010 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 11 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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