9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n time?" 2.. The statement of the case, as received, is as follows: The applicant was assessed to tax for the period 1st October 1973 to 30th September, 1974. He preferred the first appeal against the best judgment assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, which was disallowed. A second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. First appellate order was communicated to the applicant on 19th February, 1979. The appeal was sent by registered post on 20th April, 1979 and was received by the Tribunal on 24th April, 1979. Delay of 4 days had taken place as under section 38(4) of the Act an appeal has to be preferred within a period of 60 days before the Tribunal. The applicant submitted an affidavit before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inistrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 has not been relied upon, but we considered the same also, as it is mentioned in statement of the case. 4.. On behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, we heard the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, who was present in person. He supported the decision of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay. 5.. The facts stated above, in our opinion, do not make out any case for making a reference under section 44(1) of the Act, as the question of condonation of delay is purely a question of fact and exercise of the discretion to condone or not to condone the delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be a question of law, what constitutes sufficient cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal is bound to accept the affidavit and the medical certificate filed in the case. While assessing the value to be attached to the affidavit and the medical certificate, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the assessee acted negligently and there was no sufficient cause to condone delay. It is settled law that the Judges are not computers in assessing the value to be attached to evidence before them to consider the material or the evidence placed before them on the basis of probabilities (see Chaturbhuj Pande v. Collector, Raigarh AIR 1969 SC 255). 7.. We have considered the authorities of the Apex Court relied on by the assessee-dealer in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the appellant-assessee was negligent, there were no bona fides, there was no sufficient cause and rejected the application to condone delay. The Tribunal has considered the affidavit and the medical certificate and after considering the probabilities has rightly held that there was no sufficient cause to condone delay. In the circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal does not call for any interference, as it does not constitute a question of law. 9.. Hence, the question referred to this Court for its opinion is answered against the assessee and in favour of the department. 10.. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
