TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. More importantly, if such application was filed on 01.01.2014 as is stated by the petitioner, there was no further requirement of filing a fresh application on 24.03.2021. This application is premised on the ground that he had never received the order of dismissal of revision petition and, therefore, he was filing a restoration application several years later. This is in conflict with his stand that he had filed the restoration application way back on 01.01.2014. Even his assertion that he had never received the order of dismissal of revision petition is disputed by the Commissioner while dismissing the application for restoration in which he has recorded that the said order was served on the petitioner on 23.11.2013. Even the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely. This order of assessment records that despite issuance of notices under Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act on several occasions and fixing of date of hearing of the assessment proceedings also on several occasions, neither the dealer nor his representative appeared before the assessing authority. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to frame ex parte assessment. Taking note of the total imports made by the dealer, he assessed the above amounts of tax with penalty. 3. Against the said order of the Assessing Officer petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional authority. On 07.11.2013 the revisional authority passed following order: 07.11.2013 The case was heard on 30.09.2013. Sri A.K. Dasgupta, P.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on 30.12.2013 which assertion the department has strongly denied. In this application, the petitioner had contended that he was not aware of the legal technicalities and he depended on his lawyer. The order dismissing the revision petition for default may be recalled. 6. For several years thereafter nothing happened. According to the petitioner he was served the notices from the department for coercive recoveries only recently upon which he approached the Commissioner again under an application dated 24.03.2021. In this application the petitioner has averred that the revision petition was fixed for hearing on 16.05.2013. He had also made the pre-deposit as required under the law. The petitioner thereafter has stated that: 3) Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the petitioner s case needs to be examined on merits. 9. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. K. De opposed the petition. Relying on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Government he submitted that the application dated 01.01.2014 for restoration stated to have been filed by the petitioner is not available on record. Thus, no such petition was ever made. Only application for restoration is one filed by the petitioner on 24.03.2021 which the revisional authority correctly held to be hopelessly belated. 10. In absence of any reliable evidence of the petitioner filing restoration application on 01.01.2014 as stated, in the present case we are unable to accept the stand of the petitioner in this respect. It is tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espite issuance of several notices and adjournment of the proceedings on various occasions the petitioner did not remain present. Even while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner, the Commissioner has recorded that he was given sufficient opportunities and all that the petitioner was interested was in prolonging the litigation. 11. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has not showed any serious inclination to pursue his cause on merits. If he accepts that only application for restoration that he had made is one dated 24.03.2021, the same is hopelessly barred by delay and laches and correctly dismissed by the Commissioner. 12. Revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
