1976 (8) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce and the matter has been argued before us. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, revised the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. The Deputy Commissioner passed the order on 6th January, 1973. But the order of revision was served upon the assessee only on 21st November, 1973. It was urged in the appeal agains .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ace was unreasonable and inordinate. Again, as in that case, as we have pointed out in our judgment in Khetmal Parekh Co. v. State of A.P.[1976] 38 S.T.C. 531. (T.R.C. No. 1 of 1976) on the ground of unreasonable delay in the service of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, each case must be judged on its own facts and, in our opinion, the delay of more than ten months in serving the order of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X