9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 912 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether appeal is time-barred? Held that - In the considered view of this court the approach adopted by the first respondent in considering the delay peti tion is contrary to well established legal principles and is hence liable to be set aside with further direction issued to the appellate authority to entertain the appeal and to dispose of it on the merits. In the result the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated November 28 2006 made in M.P. No. 83 of 2006 with further direction issued to the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated June 27 2006 and to dispose of the same on the merits as per law
Issues:
Challenge to order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Delay in filing statutory appeal, Exclusion of time spent in court proceedings from total delay calculation. Analysis: The writ petition challenged the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated November 28, 2006, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order of June 27, 2006. The petitioner, a works contractor under tax acts, filed objections against the proposed tax levy on works contract turnover. After a series of legal proceedings, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal with a delay of 63 days, seeking condonation. The first respondent dismissed the petition for condoning delay, citing the 30-day limit for delay condonation. The petitioner argued that the time spent in earlier court proceedings should be excluded from the total delay calculation, reducing the delay to 13 days within the statutory limit. The petitioner relied on various judgments supporting the exclusion of court proceeding time for delay calculation. The court noted that previous judgments had condoned delays when the total delay, excluding court proceeding time, fell within statutory limits. The court criticized the first respondent's strict approach and directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal and decide on merits. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order, and directed the first respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order and dispose of it on merits. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
