9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the case the order of the tribunal annexure 'A-6' is not a Non Speaking order? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department has explained the delay by a 'sufficient cause' and has been able to show due diligence in perusing the remedy? iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in K. Ajesh and Company which was not a binding precedent and was under challenged before the High Court by the department could form a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay? iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prejudice being caused to the dealer by condonation of such a long delay was not factor to the considered. v. Whether in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 22.04.2002 7. VATAP No.83/2010 M/s Varun Export 1994-95 29.04.2002 8. VATAP No.85/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1988-89 22.04.2002 9. VATAP No.87/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1989-90 22.04.2002 10. VATAP No.88/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1992-93 22.04.2002 11. VATAP No.89/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1991-92 22.04.2002 12. VATAP No.90/2010 M/s Varun Export 1995-96 29.04.2002 13. VATAP No.91/2010 M/s Sachdeva Oil and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 1994-95 16.04.2002 14. VATAP No.92/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1994-95 22.04.2002 15. VATAP No.93/2010 M/s Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals on merits, remitted the cases back to him for fresh decision on merits. Aggrieved against the order, the appellants preferred appeals bearing VAT Appeal No.2 of 2009 decided on 18.3.2009, 37 to 52 of 2009 decided on 13.8.2009 and 75 of 2009 decided on 15.2.2010 before this Court. This Court while accepting the appeals set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remitted the cases back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Tribunal again vide order dated 8.10.2009, accepted the applications filed by the State seeking condonation of huge delay in filing the appeals and directed that the appeals be listed for final hearing. 5. Impugning the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Rakhra, District Patiala, (2015) 50 PHT 118 (P&H), the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority were clearly barred by limitation. There was no error in the appellate order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals). Before Section 11 of the Act was amended w.e.f. 3.3.1998, there was no limitation provided for framing of assessment. After the amendment, three years period was prescribed. This Court opined that three years can be taken as period of limitation for framing assessment after the amendment. It was opined that for the assessment years upto 1997-98, the assessment could be framed only upto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited's case (supra). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 9. The undisputed facts, which are on record are that in the case of the appellants, the assessment for the years from 1983-84 to 1996-97 were framed by the assessing authority by passing orders on different dates in April, 2002. The details are mentioned in para No.3 of the judgment. The issue regarding limitation for passing the orders of assessment was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited's case (supra) and it was opined that the assessments upto the years 1997-98 could not validly be passed after April, 2001. Relevant para thereof is extracted below:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perative Sugar Mills Limited's case (supra), as all the assessment orders are barred by limitation as prescribed in Section 11 (4) of the Act. All the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 11 (4) of the Act. 12. Hence, without going into the issue of delay in filing the appeals by the State before the Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to conclude the matters here finally as on merits the issue is covered in favour of the appellants. Even if, we take a lenient possible view in favour of the State in dealing with applications for condonation of delay and dismiss the present appeals, the matter will have to be considered on merits by the Tribunal. In view of conceded position in law as per j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
