9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit fixed under Section 46 (8A) of the VAT Act for deciding the appeals. In our considered view, the time limit fixed under Section 46 (8A) of the VAT Act, will not override or curtail the right of the appellant to invoke provisions of readmission/rehearing of the appeal which suffered dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 61 (4) of the VAT Rules, 2006. On invocation of the provision of Rule 61 (4) the appellate authority is duty bound to consider the prayer made in it irrespective of the expiry of time fixed under Section 46 (8A) for deciding the appeal as the both the provisions operate in different spheres. The view taken by the appellate authority if allowed to stand, would render provisions of Rule 61 (4) of the VAT Rules, 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e orders dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6). According to the petitioner, the said orders of dismissal of its appeals were not known to it, and therefore, its Counsel attended the office of the appellate authority at Indore on 17.08.2012 with written submissions, but he was informed that the files were taken by the Appellate Authority to Bhopal. On 20.08.2012, petitioner s Counsel requested the second respondent to inform the petitioner about the status of appeals, but no information was supplied to him. The petitioner s Counsel went thrice to Bhopal to find out the status of appeals, but on that, he was informed that the files are not traceable. Lastly, the petitioner was served with orders dated 07.08.2012 for the first time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or readmission/rehearing of the appeal, which is dismissed or decided ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of Rule 61. In the circumstances while dealing with the application for readmission/rehearing the petitioner s application could not have been dismissed on the ground of lapse of period fixed under Section 46 (8A) of the VAT Act, but was required to have been decided on its merits. (6) Shri Sudhanshu Vyas learned panel lawyer for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order of rejection of the petitioner s applications for readmission/rehearing of the appeals. (7) Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure P-14) pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
