9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 9(4) of the U.P. Entry Tax Act, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 86 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 87 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 28 UP VAT Act. Since the issues involved in these revisions are similar and the same questions of law are framed, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025 4. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority passed an ex parte order dated 01.03.2013 imposing tax on the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a recall application on 16.07.2013 for recall of the ex parte order dated 01.03.2013, which has been rejected by the Assessing Authority vide order dated 03.04.2017. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2017, the revisionist preferred first appeal before the 1st appellate authority, which has been rejected vide order dated 13.05.2024 on the ground of delay. Still feeling aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2024, the revisionist preferred a second appeal before the Commercial Court Tribunal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.01.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2], S/s Tulsyan Coal Company Vs. CCT [STRE No. 465 of 2017 dated 20.11.2014] as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in Rafiq Vs. Munshilal [1981 (2) SCC 788]. 9. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the appeal has been filed without any proper explanation and therefore, the same has rightly been dismissed on the ground of laches. He further submits that the affidavit of the Advocate has been filed for the first time before this Court, which could not be accepted. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 11. It is not in dispute that the first appeal has been filed with delay. The cause of delay has been shown to be due to the fault of the Advocate to whom t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
