1986 (7) TMI 380 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the revision application was time-barred?
- Whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision application?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a revision application filed against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Tribunal found that the revision application was prima facie barred by limitation as it was filed after the prescribed period. The applicant argued that the order date was not communicated to them, but the Tribunal held that the responsibility to ascertain the order date lies with the parties. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had constructive knowledge of the order date and, therefore, the revision application was time-barred.

Issue 2:
The applicant contended that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision application. However, the Tribunal found no valid explanation for the delay in filing the application within the prescribed period. The applicant's argument that they were not informed of the order date was not accepted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and did not admit the application.

The Tribunal's findings were based on established facts, including the presence of both parties during the order date announcement and the immediate passing of the order after the hearing. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, affirming that the revision application was indeed time-barred. The Court emphasized that the findings of fact by the Tribunal were binding and ruled in favor of the opposite party.