9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'KVAT Act' for short). The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation by an order dated 29.07.2013 and against which a second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has dismissed the same. The appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation and the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 3. The short point involved in the present case, whether delay can be condoned beyond the period under Section 62 of the KVAT Act or not. Section 62(1), (2) and (3) reads as under : 62. Appeals.- (1) Any person objecting to any order or proceedings affecting him passed under the provisions of this Act by the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Bench of this Court in the case of VASAVI INDUSTRIES, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2011 (70) Kar.L.J. 113 (HC)(DB). 5. With the consent of the parties the present appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether or not the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.02.2016 is up holding the authorities below rejected on the ground of delay? (b) Whether or not the Tribunal is legally justified without being considering the appeal on merits instead of rejecting the appeal on point of limitation before the appellate authority dated 27.07.2013? (c) Whether or not the petitioner paid the two times the tax on same transaction and further request the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay beyond the period of 180 days after prescribed period of 30 days for filing appeal would not have been condoned by the appellate authority and the same is illegal and once the entertainment of appeal by the appellate authority by condoning the delay is held to be illegal, ought to have dismissed the appeal. Order passed in appeal cannot be sustained." iii) In the case of Poshak Textiles vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2008) 11 VST 572 has held: "The delay beyond 180 days cannot be condoned by the Appellate Authority." 14. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Act, we answer to point No.(1) in the affirmative. 15. Point No.(2): For the reasons discussed above, we pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
