TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification, it was for the petitioner to establish that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions with regard to supply to the specified agency. Merely raising a contention that the petitioner was entitled to benefit of exemption notification, really does not suffice in such matters. Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 14392 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA, AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w. Ms Pragya Koolwal I/b UBR Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Karan Adik a/w. Ms Maya Majumdar for Respondent NO.2. PC 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Mr. Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of instructions, states that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority, the petitioner has specifically contended that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of exemption notification since, the petitioner, was providing services to defence and other Government establishments. He submits that such contention was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to produce the exemption notification before the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce such notification and the Adjudicating Authority in any case, ought to have been presumed to have known about such notification. Mr.Raichandani, therefore, submits that the impugned order warrants interference, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner failed to institute an appeal against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch has answered the questions which arose in the reference, in the following terms. 31. We may now proceed to answer the question (1) Question No.1 is answered in negative by observing that the limitation provided under Section 35 of the Act cannot be condoned in filing the appeal beyond the period of 30 days as provided by the proviso nor the appeal can be filed beyond the period of 90 days. (2) The second question is answered in negative to the extent that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (3) On the third question, the answer is in affirmative, but with the clarification that A) The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India. In this regard, it was also not be necessary for the writ petitioner to assail the orders, if any, dismissing his appeal as time barred, be it by Appellate Authority or Tribunal in the event he chose to invoke such appellate remedy. On the scope of judicial review in such matters, the Full Bench has in fact followed the ruling of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 10] Upon due consideration of the contention raised by Mr.Raichandani, we are satisfied that the contention as raised neither relates to jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority nor can it be said that the Adjudicating Authority has acted in flagrant disregard to the law or violated principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
