9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Tribunal, upholding the order dated February 28, 1994, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II), New Delhi, dismissing petitioner's appeal in limine for failure on its part to comply with its order dated September 30, 1993, under section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short "the Act"). Yet another direction is sought to the respondents to hear the appeal of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was neither challenged nor complied with. On account of change in jurisdiction of the first appellate authority, petitioner's appeal was fixed for hearing on February 21, 1994, for which a registered notice was sent to it but was received back unserved with the report that there was no such firm existing at the said address. Finding that there was no proof of payment in terms of order dated Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner-company which prevented it from complying with the condition of pre-deposit as directed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II). He submitted that the Tribunal should have taken a lenient view in the matter by accepting petitioner's offer to deposit Rs. 1 lakh in cash with security for the balance amount. His contention, is that the lower authorities have failed to exercise the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs on or before October 18, 1993 to enable it to entertain its appeal. As noted above, admittedly, the validity of the order dated September 30, 1993, was not questioned by the petitioner in any appeal nor was any extension of time for making the requisite deposit sought. Thus the order dated September 30, 1993, requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs by October 18, 1993, attained finali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
