2018 (10) TMI 885

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .C: This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order dated 11th October, 2017 passed under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 (the MVAT Act), by the Sales Tax Officer Respondent No.3. The impugned order dated 11th October, 2017, relates to assessment for Financial Year 201112 in respect of VAT under the MVAT Act. 2. The grievance of Mr. Thakkar, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sidered the communication written by the Assessee - wherein it is submitted that despatch proof is only required in case of interstate Sale and not for intrastate Sale. Thus, in this case, it was contended by the Petitioner that, absence of despatch proof, cannot lead to the conclusion that the goods have not been received. Thus, the impugned order, on appreciation of the evidence before him, with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lable under the MVAT Act. 5. Thus, the Petition is not entertained. However, it is clarified that in case the Petitioner does file an appeal along with the application for condonation of delay, the Appellate Authority will exclude the time spent in prosecuting this Petition, for the purpose of computing the time within which an appeal is to be filed before the Appellate Authority. This on the bas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X