Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner, VAT Versus Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd.

2015 (12) TMI 310 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Condonation of delay - Delay of 823 days - Held that:- Even if it were to be assumed that the appellant was not aware of the passing of the impugned order and it became aware of the order from the application of the respondent seeking refund, there is still no sufficient explanation for delay. It is mentioned in the application that on 29.07.2013, the case was put up for further course of action. The application does not mention as to when the department allegedly became aware of the judgment fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sted with the filing of the appeal, returned the file and the same was entrusted to another counsel. On 28.08.2014, the file was sent to the Lt. Governor for approval of appointment of the Special Counsel. On 03.01.2015, the Special Counsel was requested to prepare and file the appeal in the High Court. - department proceeded in a very casual manner in the filing of the present appeal. The explanation tendered by the department, in our view, does not show any sufficient cause. The department doe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unal has quashed the suo moto revision notice dated 01.07.1998, penalty notice under section 56 and suo moto revision order dated 11.07.2000. 2. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 823 days. 3. An assessment order under Section 23 (3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter called as the Act) was passed on 18.04.1996. On 21.02.1997, the Commissioner Sales Tax exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act passed an order directing the assessing authority to transfer the files .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ceedings. 5. Thereafter Assistant Commissioner, Zone-I issued notice dated 01.07.1998 under Section 46 of the Act proposing to revise the assessment order dated 18.04.1996. On 26.03.2001, the original assessment order was revised, leading to filing of an appeal by the respondent before the Appellate Tribunal. 6. By the impugned order dated 20.09.2012, the Appellate Tribunal relying on the earlier decision of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal has held that the impugned suo moto revision notice d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay are as under: - 20.09.2012 Judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 208/ATVAT/205-06 for the year 1991-92 & 1992-93 respectively. 28.02.2013 Review orders of judgment delivered on 20.09.2012 in Appeal Nos. 207/ATV AT/05-06 and 208/ATV AT/205-06 for the year 1992-93 issued. The department was not aware of issuance of these judgments and the same came to the knowledge of the department only when the petitioner filed a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Petition and filing before High Court of Delhi. 23.05.2014 Shri H.C. Bhatia returned the file and the file was entrusted to Shri Raj K. Batra, for doing the needful. 28.08.2014 The file is sent to Lt. Governor for approval of the appointment of Shri Raj K. Batra as Special Counsel. 03.01.2015 Shri Raj K. Batra, Special Counsel, is requested to prepare and file the appeal in the High Court of Delhi. 8. The reason mentioned by the appellant, that the department was not aware of the issuance of 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

f the impugned order and it became aware of the order from the application of the respondent seeking refund, there is still no sufficient explanation for delay. It is mentioned in the application that on 29.07.2013, the case was put up for further course of action. The application does not mention as to when the department allegedly became aware of the judgment from the application of the respondent claiming refund. The condonation application is silent about the date when the refund claim was m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appeal, returned the file and the same was entrusted to another counsel. On 28.08.2014, the file was sent to the Lt. Governor for approval of appointment of the Special Counsel. On 03.01.2015, the Special Counsel was requested to prepare and file the appeal in the High Court. The appeal is filed on 04.03.2015. 10. Even though, each days delay has to be explain, however, even if we were to take a liberal view of the matter, it is seen from the facts enumerated above that there is no explan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version