Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1276 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTRejection of application to set aside ex parte order - Petitioner could not appear in previous hearing due to ill health - Authority rejected case as time barred - Held that:- impugned order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the petitioner’s appeals were dismissed vide orders for want of prosecution - It was necessary for the appellate authority to have decided the said applications filed under Rule 61 (4) of the VAT Rules 2006, on merits. However the appellate authority has wrongly applied the time limit fixed under Section 46 (8A) of the VAT Act for deciding the appeals. In our considered view, the time limit fixed under Section 46 (8A) of the VAT Act, will not override or curtail the right of the appellant to invoke provisions of readmission/rehearing of the appeal which suffered dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 61 (4) of the VAT Rules, 2006. On invocation of the provision of Rule 61 (4) the appellate authority is duty bound to consider the prayer made in it irrespective of the expiry of time fixed under Section 46 (8A) for deciding the appeal as the both the provisions operate in different spheres. The view taken by the appellate authority if allowed to stand, would render provisions of Rule 61 (4) of the VAT Rules, 2006, to be redundant, as in the cases when the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution just before expiry of 12 months, the restoration application which will naturally be filed after 12 months would not become maintainable, which in our considered view cannot be the intention of the legislature - Decided in favour of assessee.
|