9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1290 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay in filing revision - proceedings taken by the AO for rectifying an apparent mistake that occurred in the order of the AO - Held that - The proceedings taken by the AO was not at all relevant for filing a revision from the order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2016. It is also pertinent that it was not the AO s duty to file an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner (Law) is the proper person to decide as to whether an appeal is to be filed or not. On arriving at such an opinion, the Deputy Commissioner usually makes a request to the Advocate General s office, on which the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) takes a call as to whether the appeal has to be filed or not. The Deputy Commissioner (Law) would not have been apprised of the proceedings taken by the AO; nor is that necessary. A mistake in TIN number would not disentitle the filing of a revision before this Court. The filing of an appeal is also the responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner (Law) and not of the AO - the application for delay condition is rejected.
Issues: Delay in filing revision from Tribunal order; Explanation of delay by Deputy Commissioner of State Tax; Relevance of AO's rectification proceedings; Responsibility of Deputy Commissioner (Law) in filing appeal.
In this judgment by the High Court of Kerala, the primary issue was the delay of 647 days in filing a revision from the Tribunal order. The assessment order was passed on 31.10.2014, with subsequent appeals leading to the Tribunal's order on 30.08.2016. The delay was explained by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, citing rectification proceedings initiated by the AO for a mistake in the TIN number. However, the Court emphasized that the AO's rectification was not relevant for filing the revision, as it was the responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner (Law) to decide on filing appeals. The Court noted that the AO's rectification proceedings were not necessary for filing a revision before the Court. The responsibility of deciding on appeals lies with the Deputy Commissioner (Law), who then involves the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) in making the decision to file an appeal. The Court highlighted that a mistake in the TIN number does not prevent the filing of a revision, and the delay caused by the AO's rectification was deemed irrelevant for the revision process. Ultimately, the Court rejected the application for delay condonation, leading to the dismissal of the revision. The Court concluded that the delay was not justified by the actions of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, as the responsibility for filing appeals rested with the Deputy Commissioner (Law) and not the AO. The judgment left the question of law raised in the revision open for future consideration.
|
