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 →

State of Haryana Versus M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Baddi

2016 (1) TMI 586 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Condonation of inordinate delay of 1298 days in filing the appeal - revenue appeal - Power of the Checking Officer to decide the nature of transactions at hand - Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that:- The narration of cause for claiming condonation of delay in filing the present appeal does not satisfy the test of “sufficient cause” so as to entitle the State for condonation of inordinate delay of 1298 days in filing the appeal. Narration of above facts shows that the State was not seri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d for condonation of delay is made out. - Decided against the revenue. - CM No. 23224-CII of 2015 and VATAP No. 51 of 2015 - Dated:- 11-12-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Appellant : Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure A-3) passe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d circumstances the checking officer was justified in imposing the penalty on the difference of price as provided under proviso Ist to Section 31(8)? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in setting aside the well reasoned orders of both the authorities below? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case even if the observations of Ld. Tribunal that the case should have been handed over to the Assessing Authority are taken to be correct, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onic goods. The manufacturing units are at different places outside the State including at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. On 7.2.2010, vehicle bearing registration No. HR-12A-6781 was intercepted during the course of roadside checking and the goods were detained under Section 31(6) of the Act. The Assessing Authority vide order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure A-1) found the goods under invoiced and were charged to tax under Section 31(8) of the Act amounting to 74,434/- and also imposed penalty to the tune .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce the appeal is barred by time, an application bearing CM No. 23224-CII of 2015 has been filed under Section 5 of the 1963 Act for condonation of 1298 days' delay in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard learned State counsel. 5. Before proceeding with the merits of the controversy, it would be essential to examine whether the State has been able to give any satisfactory explanation for condonation of colossal delay of 1298 days in filing the present appeal. 6. Analyzing the legal position r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause .....

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 of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil. 7. Adverting to the factual matrix in the present case, the plea for condoning the delay is that the impugned order was passed on 18.11.2011 and the certified copy thereof was received on 20.1.2012. The office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana sought comments vide memo dated 11.1.2012 from the Assessing Authori .....

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