TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersy, but remanded the matter to the learned OHA. This was, essentially, for the reason that one of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the learned OHA had not put the issue of limitation to the appellant and therefore, the appellant did not have the opportunity to respond to the same. There are no infirmity with the decision of the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the learned OHA. It would be apposite for the learned OHA, in the first instance, to decide the contentious issues, including the issue whether the notices were required to be digitally signed as contended by the petitioner - appeal dismissed. - VAT APPEAL 24/2022 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2023 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he input tax credit claimed by the dealer to the extent of ₹1,11,469/- and consequently, imposed a tax of an equivalent amount. The assessing officer had also examined the penalty of ₹10,000/- in respect of the third quarter of the year 2015-16. 4. It is the appellant s case that its application before the OHA was not barred by limitation as he had not received the notices dated 14.09.2016 and 14.05.2017. The appellant has also filed a copy of the form DVAT-38, whereby the appellant had raised the said ground that it had not received the notice and therefore, was unaware as to when the documents were to be produced. The appellant had also sought one more opportunity for producing the said relevant documents. 5. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave the opportunity to respond to the same. 10. We find no infirmity with the decision of the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the learned OHA. It would be apposite for the learned OHA, in the first instance, to decide the contentious issues, including the issue whether the notices were required to be digitally signed as contended by the petitioner. 11. The Tribunal has also granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for seeking condonation of delay. In this regard, it is clarified that if any such application is filed, it would be without prejudice to the appellant s contention that his objections were filed before the learned OHA within time as he had not received the notices dated 14.09.2016 and 14.05.2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
