9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notices was also allowed by the High Court appears to have proceeded on the basis that the show cause notice had been issued on the basis that the eligibility certificate had been wrongly obtained. It is apparent from the narration of facts that the show cause notices were in fact issued for the period prior to the grant of the eligibility certificate. It cannot be said, therefore, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the High Court relating to eight show cause notices issued by the appellants under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The eight show cause notices were issued for the period 1982-83 to 1984-85. By the show cause notices the respondents were asked to explain why they should not be held liable for payment of sales tax on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition the eligibility certificate granted to the respondents was sought to be cancelled by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on February 25, 1988. The cancellation was challenged by the respondent before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The challenge was negatived by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved the respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court, by its order dated No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded on the basis that the eligibility certificate was invalid. All that the appellants proposed to do was to hold the respondent liable to pay sales tax in respect of the amount admittedly collected by the respondent on account of sales tax until it was granted the eligibility certificate. 6.. In our view, the High Court proceeded on an incorrect basis. Hence, the decision cannot stand. In any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The respondents are at liberty to challenge the order of assessment dated December 26, 1985 by filing an appeal under section 9 of the Act. The delay in preferring the appeal, in our view, should be condoned having regard to the fact that the respondents were prosecuting proceedings erroneously before another court. This relaxation of the time-limit however will operate in favour of the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
