1999 (8) TMI 927 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Sales Tax Tribunal for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by Assistant Commissioner (Judicial).

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The first appeal was decided on May 3, 1986, and the appeal before the Tribunal was filed more than 2½ years later in January 1989. The prescribed period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal is 90 days from the date of service of the order. The petitioner claimed to have become aware of the appeal's rejection on January 10, 1989, and obtained a certified copy of the order on January 18, 1989. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner's counsel received the copy of the appellate order on May 13, 1986, and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

The petitioner argued that the counsel was not authorized to receive the copy of the order and relied on the rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The rule allows for service of notices or orders on the dealer or their representative, including a counsel who may act as an agent. The petitioner cited previous judgments to support the contention that, post-amendment, a copy of the order could not be served on a lawyer. However, the court noted that the counsel could be considered an agent based on the terms of the vakalatnama executed by the client. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the counsel was not authorized to receive the order on their behalf, and no evidence was presented to show that the counsel was not acting as an agent. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, with each party bearing their own costs.