9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 21st December, 1971, of the Tribunal in Revision Case No. 95 of 1969. The revision application was filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, dated 7th April, 1969, passed in Sales Tax Appeal No. MGST No. 2 of 1967-68. The revision application was filed before the Tribunal on 28th June, 1969. Under section 31(4) of the Act the revision application could be filed within sixty days from 7th April, 1969, i.e., till 6th June, 1969. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the revision application was, prima facie, barred by limitation. The Tribunal also held that no deduction could be admissible for the time taken in the grant of certified copy, as it was applied for on 12th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l held that the facts which are established in this case are that the appeal was heard on 20th March, 1969, when both parties were present. The Deputy Commissioner had passed the order on that date fixing 7th April, 1969, for passing of the appellate order as soon as the hearing was completed and as the signature of Shri N. Sahai, Advocate for the opposite party, had been taken on 20th March, 1969, at the conclusion of the hearing there was no reason to suppose that this order was passed behind the back of the parties after they had left. The Tribunal also held that the law does not prescribe that the signature of the parties should be taken in the order sheet or that the parties should be served with a notice of the date for order and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed. The Tribunal, therefore, refused to condone the delay and did not admit the application. 5.. Thus the Tribunal has held on the facts that the applicant could know the date of the order from the order dated 20th March, 1969, or from the cause list dated 20th March, 1969. The Tribunal has held as a fact that the order dated 20th March, 1969, was passed in presence of both the parties immediately after the hearing of both the parties was completed, which goes to show that the petitioner knew on 20th March, 1969, that the order on appeal was to be passed on 7th April, 1969. The Tribunal also held that there was no sufficient cause for not filing the application within the limitation period. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal are findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rative Societies. After the expiry of the period of limitation, the Tribunal office intimated the assessee that the said notification was not applicable to the assessee and, hence, the appeal was incompetent in the absence of the deposit of Rs. 100. Three days after receipt of the communication, the assessee deposited the sum of Rs. 100 in the treasury and transmitted the chalan to the Tribunal office. The assessee also filed an application for condonation of the delay stating that the assessee was prevented by a bona fide impression arising from the communication received by the assessee from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies from making the deposit of Rs. 100 at the time when the assessee presented the appeal to the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
