Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (12) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he quarter ending October 2012. However, after carefully going through the facts we found that the claim made by the appellant for the remaining quarters for the year 2012 was sanctioned and paid only in the year 2016. The appellant s case is that during 2016, when he had received the payment for three quarters and did not receive the payment for the quarter ending 30.06.2012. Once we are steer clear of this issue, the next aspect which we have to see is as to whether the application filed by the appellant in the manual format could have been accepted though filed beyond the period of four months stipulated under the scheme. In the absence of any power conferred on the authority to entertain an application beyond the period stipulated, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the server copy of this order. - MAT NO. 1495 OF 2022 WITH I.A. NO. CAN 01 OF 2022 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Appearance:- Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharaff, Adv. Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Adv.........For the Petitioner Mr. Soumitra Mukherjee, Adv. ..For the Respondents JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) 1. This intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 16.08.2022 in WPA No. 3639 of 2019. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce, the benefit was not extended for the said period which prompted them to submit representations dated March 18, 2016 and April 28, 2016 followed by reminder dated 11.05.2016. The authority declined to grant the benefit on the ground that the form was filed well beyond the period fixed in the scheme. Challenging the decision of the authority, the appellant had approached the Writ Court for the aforementioned relief. The learned Writ Court by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition, on the ground that the stand taken by the appellant that on account of technical glitches suffered by them cannot be accepted and for such purpose evidence cannot be recorded in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and in the absence of any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d received the payment for three quarters and did not receive the payment for the quarter ending 30.06.2012. The appellant approached the authority and filed the requisite applications in a manual format on 04.11.2012. This submissions made by the appellant has not been contraverted by the respondents nor any record to the contrary had been placed before the learned Writ Court or before us. Therefore, it would be incorrect to state that the appellant is guilty of delay and latches from the year 2012-2016. Once we are steer clear of this issue, the next aspect which we have to see is as to whether the application filed by the appellant in the manual format could have been accepted though filed beyond the period of four months stipulated unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant had filed the present writ petition. It is not clear as to why the petitioner or the erstwhile counsel did not pursue the matter. Nevertheless, for no fault committed by the appellant or the fault committed by the erstwhile counsel who had been engaged in the matter, the appellant should not be penalized or non-suited. It is not the case that the earlier writ petition was filed and it was dismissed. The record shows that the writ petition was affirmed on 13.02.2017 and there is nothing to show that it was registered and case number was allotted etc. In any even such a stand cannot be permitted to be taken by the respondent to deny relief to the appellant. That apart, the bonafides of the appellant have not been doubted by the respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates