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. Indian Steel & Allied Products Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Addl.) , The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) II, The State of Tamilnadu And The Secretary

2016 (2) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Petition for condonation of delay by computing the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal from the date of receipt of the order - Held that:- It is seen that without considering the counter affidavit, especially, paragraph 8, wherein,the delay in filing the appeal is calculated to the tune of 134 days, the Tribunal passed the order. - the date of service of the order of the Appellate Tribunal to the State's representative as the actual date to be taken into consideration for calculating the peri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ional Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner, who is a re-roller of iron and steel products, is a registered dealer on the file of first respondent under TNGST Act and CST Act. The first respondent in his proceedings made in CST.9574/93-94 dated 26.2.1999 disallowed the petitioner's claim of exemption on consignment transfer made during the assessment year 1993-94, thereby levied tax and maximum penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal in A.P.No.CST.47/99 before the second .....

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 Departmental representative (CT) II, who received notice and appeared before the 2nd respondent on behalf of the first respondent. 3. The petitioner filed counter affidavit to condonation petition stating that the appeal order was served to the first respondent on 16.2.2000 and to the Departmental representative (CT)II on 18.2.2000 and hence taking into consideration, the date of service of the order on the first respondent or his authorised representative, the appeal ought to have been file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

120 days and hence the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he also relied on the following decisions rendered by the Honourble Division Bench of this Court; (i) 2005-06 (11) TNCTJ 79 (M/s. Arihand Electrical and Refrigeration Centre Vs. The Secretary, Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal) and (ii) 136 STC 632 (State of Tamilnadu Vs. R.K. Herbal (P) Ltd and others) and submitted that condonation petition filed by the 3rd respondent under pro .....

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