TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue could not give any satisfactory explanation for not sending copy of order to appellant, upon its address given in memorandum of appeal – Well settled that party should not be condemned unheard and case should not be rejected on technical grounds, rather should be decided on merit unless delay is attributable 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of ₹ 1,51,687/- under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act vide order dated 29.04.2008. 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 upon the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala to dispatch the copy of the order dated 22.05.2009 passed by him to the deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala under Rule 71(1)(a) of Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 to send the copy of his order dated 22.05.2009 to the above address of the appellant at Abohar. However, he instead of sending the above order at the aforesaid address of the appellant at Abohar had sent the same to the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranch office at Rajpura. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents could not give any satisfactory explanation for not sending the copy of the order dated 22.05.2009 to the appellant, upon its address given in the memorandum of appeal. 12. More so, by this time, it is well settled that a party should not be condemned unheard and the case should not be rejected on technical grounds, rather should be decided on merit unless delay is attributable to gross negligence of a party. Since learned counsel for the respondents has miserably failed to prove proper service of the order dated 22.05.2009 upon the appellant at its proper address, therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
