9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case may be culled out from the statement of the case as well as from the order dated December 21, 1971, of the Tribunal in Revision Case No. 95 of 1969. The revision application was filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, dated April 7, 1969, passed in Sales Tax Appeal MGST No. 2 of 1967-68. The revision application was filed before the Tribunal on June 28, 1969. Under section 31(4) of the Act, the revision application could be filed within sixty days from April 7, 1969, i.e., till June 6, 1969. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the revision application was, prima facie, barred by limitation. The Tribunal also held that no deduction could be admissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to know of the order only on June 12, 1969. The Tribunal held that the facts which are established in this case are that the appeal was heard on March 20, 1969, when both parties were present. The Deputy Commissioner had passed the order on that date fixing April 7, 1969, for passing of the appellate order as soon as the hearing was completed and as the signature of Shri N. Sahai, advocate for the opposite party, had been taken on March 20, 1969, at the conclusion of the hearing, there was no reason to suppose that this order was passed behind the back of the parties after they had left. The Tribunal also held that the law does not prescribe that the signature of the parties should be taken in the order sheet or that the parties should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and the application was filed. The Tribunal, therefore, refused to condone the delay and did not admit the application. Thus the Tribunal has held on the facts that the applicant could know the date of the order from the order dated March 20, 1969, or from the cause list dated March 20,1969. The Tribunal has held as a fact that the order dated March 20, 1969, was passed in the presence of both the parties immediately after the hearing of both the parties was completed, which goes to show that the petitioner knew on March 20, 1969, that the order on appeal was to be passed on April 7, 196 9. The Tribunal also held that there was no sufficient cause for not filing the application within the limitation period. Thus, the findings of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f limitation, the office of the Tribunal intimated the assessee that the said notification was not applicable to the assessee and, hence, the appeal was incompetent in the absence of the deposit of Rs. I 00. Three days after receipt of the communication, the assessee deposited the sum of Rs. 100 in the treasury and transmitted the chalan to the Tribunal office. The assessee also filed an application for condonation of the delay stating that the assessee was prevented by a bona fide impression arising from the communication received by the assessee from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies from making the deposit of Rs. 100 at the time when the assessee presented the appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
