TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 6.8.97 (Annex.4) being time barred as it could have been filed only within the period of 180 days from the date of commencement of commercial production in terms of the said scheme. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Tax Board vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.2001. Hence, this revision. 3. Mr. Vineet Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there had been some error etc. and petitioner, while submitting the application for grant of benefit of the scheme, had mentioned that the commercial production started from 4.8.96 though it was not correct and the actual date of commencement of the commercial production was 2.10.96. Petitioner's application stood rejected by the DLSC being time barred, vide order dt.6.8.97, without giving any opportunity of heating to him and the appellate Board has not considered the matter is correct perspective, therefore, the case requires interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. 4. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner, while submitting the application, had mentioned that commercial production commenced on 4.8.96. Subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Section 86 of the Act upon this Court, can be exercised only when the case involves a question of law, which means a case involving the construction of a Statute or document of title. A finding on a question of fact may also be open to attack as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or it is perverse. (Vide Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - A finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Tribunal is final even though the Court might not, on the materials, have come to the same conclusion if it had the power to substitute its own judgment. 9. Similar view has been reiterated in Bhagirathi Agrawal and Bros. v. State of Orissa (2), wherein the Court stressly observed that the question of fact cannot be decided on surmises and Fictions and unless the judgment is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence, the revisional power cannot be exercised. 10. In A.C.T.O. v. Ramesh Leather Store and ors. (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re passing the order, i.e. dismissing the application, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain whether the application was or not within the limitation. The petition was allowed and direction was issued to reconsider the application. The said judgment, with all the respect, runs counter to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manindra Land Building Corporation (supra) wherein it has been categorically held that where the application is time barred, the Court shall not consider it. 13. Moreso, the facts are quite distinguishable as in the instant case, petitioner has not filed any representation before the DLSC after rejection of his application. Even otherwise, question of reconsideration may not be permissible in absence of specific provision conferring such power upon the authority as it performs quasi-judicial function. (Vide Baijnath Ram Goyanka v. Nand Kumar Singh (6); Patel Chunilbhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderrao jambekar (7); Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh (8); Patel narsi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjun Singhji (9); Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafatulla Khan and Ors (10); Dr. Smt. 1 Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (19); and Fertilizer Corporation of India v. State of Bihar (20), wherein it was held that as the procedural requirement requires liberal construction, the delay should be condoned. In a case where there is no application for condonation of delay, the ratio of the said judgment has no application and the facts of that case are distinguishable. 19. In absence of any application for condonation of delay, entertaining an application would amount to extending the period of limitation which itself amounts to legislation a role not assigned to the Authority as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramchandran v. State Kerala and Anr. (21), observing that the law of limitation hardly affects a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigors when the Statute so prescribes and Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable ground. The said judgment was followed by the Division Bench of this Court on Jaya Bhaduri v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.(22). 20. The petitioner-assessee connate be permitted to take advantage of this won wrong for not filling the application for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
