9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Sales Tax Act and was assessed under the Madhya Pradesh Valued Added Tax Act, 2002, (For short 'VAT Act') for the same period vide order dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure P/2). In both the assessments, the petitioner was denied time to file F- Forms. (2) Aggrieved by the said assessment orders, the petitioner filed appeals under Section 46 of the VAT Act. The appeals were listed for hearing on 07.08.2012 before an Officer holding office at Bhopal and was given additional charge of Indore. On that day, petitioner's Counsel could not attend hearing of the appeals because of his ailment. The appeals were, therefore, dismissed by the appellate authority for want of prosecution vide orders dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6). Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is required to be disposed of by the appellate authority within a period of one year and that since the period was already over, the prayer for readmission of the appeal cannot be allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure P-14) the petitioner has filed this petition. (5) Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned appellate authority has committed error in not considering the provisions of Rule 61 (4) of the VAT Rules in its correct perspective. He argued that the time limit prescribed under Section 46 (8A) of the VAT Act is for deciding an appeal, whereas Rule 61 (4) of the VAT Rules, 2006, is a provision for readmission/rehearing of the appeal, which is dismissed or decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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, to be redundant, as in the cases when the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution just before expiry of 12 months, the restoration application which will naturally be filed after 12 months would not become maintainable, which in our considered view cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
