TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y set aside. Matter restored before the tribunal. - Trade Tax Revision No. 35 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2018 - Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J. For the Applicant : Pradeeo Agrawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. By means of the present revision the revisionist is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Commercial Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Lucknow dated 30.12.2017 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 13.04.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-5, Commercial Tax Lucknow Sri G.N. Gupta in First Appeal No. 1216 of 2010 for the annual year 2004-05 under Section 7(3) read with Section 30 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Brief fact of the case is that the revisionist is Government of India undertaking, exclusive deal in providing telecommunication services as provided by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The function providing the telecommunication services to the consumer prior to 30th September, 2000 was the department of telecommunic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38 of 2013, before the Commercial Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-I, Lucknow, which has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 on the issue of delay. The judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 is subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present revision on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal would have considered the reasons assigned in challenging the judgment and order dated 13.04.2011 and would have decided he controversy on merits. The present revision has been filed on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in not considering the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs. CCE Customs, Cochin reported in (2011) 12 SCC 608 wherein it has categorically held that the rentals of the basic telephone as well as the supply of SIM cards is not liable to be taxed . 2. Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in not considering the fact that the electromagnetic waves and radio frequencies are not goods within the meaning of the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that expression sufficient cause employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. The Supreme Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted before it. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Parimal vs. Veena alias Bharti, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545 and submitted that purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights and primary function of a Court is to adjudicate dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. If the explanation given does not smack of mala fide or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of a time dilation strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the litigant. Therefore, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Commercial Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Lucknow, without appreciating the correct factual and legal position, has proceeded to pass the judgment by dismissing the appeal as barred by time, which is not sustainable in law and is liable to be interfered by this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rasad Singh, Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills(P) Ltd., Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao , Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand, Srei International Finance Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd.. and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises) . The Tribunal in dealing the matter on the subject of delay has ignored the ratio decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. The purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights and primary function of a Court is to adjudicate dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. If the explanation given does not smack of mala fide or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of a time dilation strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the litigant. If the State is a applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbibed, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand, but it is also true that the State represent the collective cause of the community and considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of making decision is a comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
